The media says, “Jump.” And the public responds in unison, “How
high?”
“As high as you
ever have jumped before, except maybe after 9/11, or the Kennedy
assassination.”
Of course, when
there is news, it should be reported. Today it is reported sensationally, as
entertainment. Is it meant to inform, or induce?
Which came
first, the media’s obsession with violence, or the public demand for violence?
In the 1990’s as violent crime in America dropped, the media filled more and
more time slots with stories about violence.
By the end of
the 90’s the public was clamoring for the government to do somethingabout what they
assumed was a rising trend in violent crime.
Was that
orchestrated? The government certainly benefits from a hysterical public
begging them to help. It certainly gives the government an important role in
the daily life of an average citizen. But this alone doesn’t mean that it was a
conspiracy. Acknowledging that the government benefitted from the media’s
overreporting of crime is not the same as suggesting the government actively
pushed the media to do so.
But why not
wonder? Exercise those thought processes.
It is a known
fact that thousands of journalists were at one time on the payroll of the CIA.
It was called Operation Mockingbird, and agents would place
false stories in publications like the New York Times, and Time.
So when it comes
to the case of the fake 90’s crime wave, it makes sense to wonder if a similar
program still exists. The courts have ruled that FBI agents can legally
impersonate journalists in the course of an investigation.
Do we need to
discover the actual program in order to speculate? Well, I certainly wouldn’t
say that it is happening
without knowing for sure. But we can acknowledge a historical fact and draw a
parallel between that and a similar contemporary trend. In such circumstances,
it makes sense to be skeptical.
Either way, we
shouldn’t fall prey to the media’s manipulations about such things, regardless
of the catalyst. So why not remind people that in the past, lies from the
government shaped public opinion?
But there are
some cases when questioning, wondering, and speculating is considered downright
wrong.
When it is most important
to speak freely, you can’t.
How do I walk
the line between my inherent mistrust of the government media complex and
sincere compassion and empathy for victims of tragedy?
Is it wrong to
question official narratives after a tragic event? Is it disrespectful to
wonder if there isn’t more to the story? Should I censor myself to avoid
appearing insensitive, when I want to talk about inconsistencies in the media
tale, or the motives that various groups could have to lie about such events?
I think it is
especially important to be able to talk freely when it comes to tragedy. The
more potential an event has for exploitation, the more possibilities should be
explored.
If we are
conditioned to hold our tongues, to suppress our curiosity and skepticism when
it comes to tragedy, then the worst actors in any given situation win. Those in
power need only create a tragedy, and it becomes impossible to question the
official narrative. Otherwise, you are disrespectful and uncaring.
When someone is
gravely wounded, you don’t slap a band-aid over it. You’ve got to clean
out the wound. And that hurts in the moment. But in the long run, it is
necessary to prevent infection.
We should wonder
if 9/11 was a false flag attack. I don’t think it is disrespectful to the
victims to do so. I think it would be more disrespectful to unquestioningly
believe the official story. The official story comes from the people who have
the most to gain.
Did the
terrorists who carried out the attack on the twin towers have anything to gain?
Well maybe if they believed the whole 72 virgins thing. But in real life, they
died. Suiciding bombing is a thing that people do, however, so it certainly
can’t be ruled out.
Did Osama Bin
Laden have a lot to gain? Well again, it is tough to understand the motivation
of terrorists. Apparently, they think killing innocent people accomplishes
something. But now he is dead.
And what about
the official storytellers, the ones who investigated, and revealed the true
culprits behind 9/11?
Their gains remain.
They gained the power to easily declare wars and conduct military operations.
Money was poured into the defense budget. Agencies like Homeland Security and
the TSA sprang into existence.
Attention was
diverted from missing money at the Pentagon. The PATRIOT Act was passed. Due
process was no longer a concern.
“Mission
Accomplished” in Iraq; the glory of killing Bin Laden. The public became
desensitized to war. America helped toppled regimes in Libya and Egypt, and
support a civil war in Syria.
These things
alone don’t prove anything. But it looks awfully suspicious. The ones who we
rely on for information about what happened had the most to gain from the
attack. They are the ones who will “solve” the problems.
It is a conflict
of interest even if the official story is true. It just so happens that their
recommendations on the best course of action were the very things that would
grow their power, expand their budget, and swell their ranks.
Again we have a
historical fact to turn to for comparison. The Joint Chiefs of Staff under
Kennedy floated the idea of carrying out a false flag against American citizens
to get them involved in a war with Cuba. It was called Operation Northwoods. Kennedy told them if
they ever mentioned the idea of murdering innocent Americans again, he would
have them tried for treason.
Well, we all
know what happened to Kennedy, but that is a whole rabbit hole of its own. What
we know for sure, is that as early as the 1960’s people in the U.S. government
wanted to commit false flag attacks against Americans to provoke war. And the
leader most vehemently opposed was assassinated.
Incidentally,
the Kennedy Administration approved of Operation Mockingbird.
May I Speak Freely?
I want to
wonder, and I want to speculate. I get as angry and sad as anyone else with a
properly developed conscience when horrible things happen. I want those
responsible held accountable. And it is against my skeptical nature to accept
an official story without digging for more evidence. Horror does not paralyze
my desire to question the official narrative and wonder about inconsistencies.
One thing that
strikes me about all of the mass shootings of the past few years, is the great
diversity in location and venue.
A college in
Virginia. An elementary school in Connecticut. A mall in Washington. A
nightclub in Florida. A church in North Carolina. A movie theater in Colorado.
A political meet and greet in Arizona. The streets of California. A concert on
the Vegas strip.
If someone
wanted to strike fear into the hearts of Americans, they could not have chosen
a better range of targets. The message would be whatever place you live,
wherever you go in public, whatever your age, job, or social status, you are
not safe.
Maybe that is
the truth. And maybe it is random.
We are told
these were all carried out by lone a lone gunman–or a married couple in one
case.
But why are
there so often witness reports of a second gunman? Could it be chalked up to
confusion?
The victims
tragically lost their lives. Their families lost loved ones, which will impact
them for the rest of their lives. The American people lose their sense of
security and their rights. Relationships deteriorate as bitter disagreements
turn personal, blame abounds, fingers point, defenses go up.
And after so
many tragedies, the culprit is left dead. Is that justice?
Who benefits?
The dead guy on the 32nd floor?
The Democrats
who want gun control? The Republicans who want militarized police? The media
who get a bump in ratings? The Generals who want war? A government that “never
let(s) a good crisis go to waste”?
I want this
madness to stop. We know how the media wants it to play out. They will get
their ratings with division and bitter disagreement. The government always gets
more power, more relevance, more opportunity to insert itself into the everyday
lives of Americans.
That is why it
is so necessary to look deeper, to ask those tough questions that we don’t even
want to consider as a possibility. We can’t sit by silently wondering if we are
being told the truth or fed lies. It is not disrespectful to question the
official story. It would be a miscarriage of justice to accept it without
protest, as we are told is what should be done in times of crisis.
The only other
option is to play into the hands of the media and government, whether they be
orchestrators or opportunists. When we replay the same old arguments and put
forth the same stale solutions, when we look to them for information and
solutions, they win.
Question
everything. Clean out the wounds. It may hurt to get in there deep. But if we
don’t, the infection will grow and fester, as it always has before.
