Leave a Comment:
Add Your Reply
Suppose you were among a group of self-appointed elitists who fashioned themselves as Gods or intellectual superiors among the people. You believed that you had the inside track to what was needed to bring about a semblance of harmony amongst the generally ignorant and undisciplined masses.
Now, you had determined that what was necessary was a global governing body which you and your ilk, of necessity, would have to be the controlling force. In order to implement such a plan however, what was needed was a global governing body.
So, you constructed the framework of such a body (Think the UN here.)
Nonetheless, you also needed to gain control through the cooperation of the masses of each existing nation. This would be best done agreeably through stealth, rather than through the more easily detectable use of coercive force.
The best case scenario would be to generate a means of getting the people to actually request the implementation of your globally instituted government (or a New World Order as the political elite like to refer to it). This could happen by getting them to believe that it was their idea. As a whole, they would most agreeably accept the controls of the global government if they thought that it not only was their idea but also was in their best interests and for their personal protection and safety.
So, how could you possibly achieve such a lofty goal?
Attack innocent civilians. Come again- innocent civilians?
OK, stay with me here. Yes, innocents. That is, people including women and even children. Most especially, ordinary people. People far removed from any political game or awareness of it. Just your normal everyday, unsuspecting citizen.
Well, the reason for using this technique is actually psychologically sound from the perspective of the average psychopathic (without conscience) elitist focused only on their end game goals.
Innocents, especially those not politically astute, could easily be led (once aroused and fearful) to turn to the State to implement greater security. Even, in fact, if it meant that they were required to sacrifice and limit their own freedoms to make it happen.
This could work particularly well if if the people were either already disarmed or somewhat controlled and limited in providing their own self-protection. That is, they were already conditioned to blame weapons for violence instead of the bearer of the weapon. This would make them less inclined to carry personal protection and accept restriction. (Or afraid to carry for fear of being detected and arrested or charged for doing so.)
May I suggest that this is the manipulative logic that lies behind mass violence that has specious (having a false look of truth or genuineness) causes? I am suggesting that BTW.
Now, this could not be pulled off by a controlling group within its own kind, if there were an opportunity for detection. You would of necessity need to use stealth. You would also need to have an acceptable scapegoat to pin the blame upon, already frameable and set up to take the fall. (A “patsy” as Lee Harvey put it before being eliminated by Jack Ruby.)
After all, our own rulers could never in any way be suspected of allowing or facilitating a devastating event which impacted its own innocent civilians and continue to maintain the public trust. It would have to be precipitated by some external group of radicals far removed from this nation or some “nut” outside of the mainstream of society, of course.
Ok, now suppose you wanted to implement your New World Order. As previously noted, cooperation of the people would be an easier way to make it happen and more effective in the long run than the obvious use of force.
Generating fear of personal safety would be one very effective technique to accomplish your mission. As mentioned, if it involved the murder of innocents, you would necessarily have to be totally free of blame. Otherwise, your real intended plan to further the New World Order could not be facilitated after the precipitating event took place.
Any hint of an association like this, especially when the event were fresh, would immediately turn the people you wished to enslave upon you! This certainly would not be helpful to your long range plans. The jig would be up as the saying goes.
However, suppose you were able to very quickly pin the deed on a scapegoat? Deflect attention from it being an “inside job”and focus the public eye on outsiders. This would be especially effective if the scapegoat(s) were a group or person(s) that included a built in “confirmation bias” (That is , people’s inclination to accept information that supports what they already believe.) This technique would additionally be particularly effective if the confirmation bias belief were soundly entrenched and negatively emotionally charged.
Let’s examine 911 with this context in mind. First of all, if American’s suspected 911 involved some group from their own nation, they would get very angry. That it was in any way an inside job, they would likely turn on their government rather than support it and demand justice from it. Perhaps even resorting to violence themselves complicating rather than facilitating the end goal.
This would not do if the overall goal were to have them align with you in granting cooperation to implement enslavement of them. Just like the Lost Boys in Pinocchio, you would need to distract and engage them in their own enslavement. You certainly could not pull that off if they saw through the charade.
Fortunately for the elite controlling the media narrative, there exists another group which could very easily be targeted to pin the blame on. One that most Americans would accept as violent sorts who have no respect for freedom or Christian morality. Can you guess who that would be? I think I can safely conclude that most of us would agree that the label of radical Muslim could be acceptably inserted as the answer here.
Let me be clear that I do not intend to protect or shield Islamic teachings from their violent nature. They do teach and implement violence seen in the media as beheadings, suicide bombings, abuse against their own woman, attacks and even murder directed against Christians, against other sects they despise etc. I am simply suggesting that they, by their aggressive tendencies and inclination towards violence, they make awfully good scapegoat targets in this strategy.
On the other hand, suppose instead someone suggested that our assumed guardians of freedom, our government or individuals within our system with the ability to orchestrate a government cover up, were the perpetrators of an event like 911? Particularly after continual, immediate media suggestions implicating Bin Laden coupled with endless television loops of the buildings collapsing.
Would you think that an accusation like this would fly? Ask yourself honestly, which of the two suggestions above were you inclined to immediately accept in the aftermath of 911?
Would you be more inclined, with the built-in confirmation bias, to accept a proposed scenario involving radical Muslim terrorists or the possibility of an inside job, particularly in the immediate wake of the event. Which sounded more believable? Again, I think the answer to those questions is pretty transparent by now as well.
Perhaps, however, what actually transpired for the average citizen after the event could give us an honest perception of the real primary intended target of 911.
For example, what happened to airport security? The groping began. Another few specious events like the alleged water bottle bombing and the shoe bomber and well…..even more controls. All for our own protection and good of course.
Now, we all became criminals until we are proven innocent by either being groped or X-rayed, having our luggage examined with potentially lethal substances like shampoo containers over 6 oz. confiscated even.
Heck, I had about $40 of new, high quality, personal care products absconded because they exceeded the arbitrary oz. limits the first time I traveled after the new regulations were implemented. (I do suppose however that natural shave cream could easily be construed as a dangerous packaging for the organic terrorist. Although I imagined the NSA employee enjoying a high quality shampoo that evening instead. I was so ticked that I wrote my Congressman. Much to my surprise, he never responded. Not very patriotic of me I guess.)
The Patriot Act, was quickly generated and approved, almost as though this Act were just sitting on a shelf just waiting for the right time to be implemented. Among other intrusions like NSA spying which was exacerbated, this Act gave the government the capability of examining your bank account without you even needing to be informed by the bank, along with other State authority strengthening measures.
But hey, the term Patriot attached to the Act did give it a nice ring though. I mean, what true “Patriot” wouldn’t sacrifice their personal privacy and their 6th amendment right of privacy- “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…..” for the good of the nation and their personal security, right?
Domestic Spying by the NSA as already noted was also ramped up, as the whistle blower Mr. Snowden pointed out most recently.
Wars on terror were immediately launched against the assumed offending nations even before the corroborating evidence was collected and confirmed. Not against terrorists per se but rather against the entire nation of the assumed offenders requiring complete occupation and all out war.
Note that 15 of the accused 19 were from Saudi Arabia, the rest from Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon but we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan instead. Anyone in the mainstream media ever mention that discrepancy I wonder? Of course, it did also put a few coins in the pockets of the international financiers and continues to do. It also continues to serve as a convenient means of preserving and generating further controls on the population by keeping the flames of fear burning.
Saddam was accused of storing significant quantities of WMD’s an accusation that was never proven. The aggressive investigation yielded NO evidence after 18 months was quietly abandoned. Curiously, there was hardly a murmur in the media, in contrast to the incessant drum beat leading up to the Iraq war which was loud and repetitive. While Iraq made the front pages daily, the WMD investigation termination was in the back pages– once! (Oh and once again note that Iraq did not provide an of the accused terrorists. Why didn’t we invade the nations they actually came from if it was a “war against terror” and the nations providing the terrorists?)
The war on terror continues to be a reason to restrict our freedoms of movement and privacy. We still spend a lot of money on the war on terror, fueling inflation with debt but feeding the parasite banksters likely connected to 911 I speculate. (What else can you do when the executioner’s face is always well hidden as Dylan put it, but speculate on the evidence?)
Fear mongering continues to be a technique associated with any disturbing event. The suggestions for solutions nearly always point to further restrictions on our basic freedoms, always appointing more government authority as the solution.
So, with all of the above in mind, I invite you to objectively (which means disengaging negative emotion and fixed opinion) watch either of the 2 YouTube videos below.
Take a fresh look at 911. See if it still makes sense to you as spun by the media and government or NIST. Perhaps some of the suggested motives above may have more meaning afterwards. At the least, I think you will learn a thing or two about the implementation of government and insider deception (It’s global btw not just confined to America.):
The first video Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth presentation takes a look at the events from the point of view of construction engineers and other professionals who plan and construct high rise buildings, along with other 911 related professions which would lend themselves to contributing to an investigation of the events:
[youtube_advanced url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-V1CiuGMJo” controls=”no” rel=”no” theme=”light”]
The second one September 11- The New Pearl Harbor (full) demonstrates the parallels between 911 and Pearl Harbor and most especially addresses the conspiracy “debunkers” (from France and Italy not just the U.S.) claims in the light of the actual evidence. It is confessedly a bit long but taken in chunks if you prefer is worth the watch and will give you another view of 911 you will not get from the mainstream media in a sensible and non-hypey manner:
[youtube_advanced url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M” controls=”no” rel=”no” theme=”light”]
Give them a view. Make your own mind up based on the currently available evidence. 911 needs a second look.
NIST was a joke with ludicrous conclusions, as was the 911 commission. A second look will never happen from those in authority, just like the questions surrounding JFK which still remain satisfactorily unanswered for many of us.
The pancake collapse (despite the smoking gun anomaly of Building #7) from terrorist piloted airliners is their story. They are sticking to it. You can count on that. The real back story? Not a chance. You can count on that as well.
What the CDC Would Rather You Not Know About COVID Tests, Categories, and Their Numbers
COVID Hype and Dem Governor Tyranny Up – Mortality? Down
Completely Eliminated from the COVID-19 Panic – The Environment
The Scientist, Whose Doomsday Coronavirus Report Incited a Global Panic, Just Walked His Mortality Predictions Back to 4% of His Original Prediction
Do You Know What Is Really in the USMCA? Most Do Not
Fiona Hill’s Anti-Trump Connections Explains Why She Was On the Witness List
Vindman’s Odd Reaction During the Impeachment Sham
The Development of the Deep State – Part 1