By Maxwell C. Bridges
[Tweaked from the original for emphasis...]
"The real power to persuade and dominate a public remains with corporations and the government through control of the airwaves and domination of most publications by corporate advertisings, while news is restricted to reporting facts, to "objectivity and balance." The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel."
This indeed has been an issue with 9/11.
Every time a government spokesman or agency wanted to speak to 9/11, they could pretty much present their full argument in the corporate media with nary a dissenting or questioning commentator to offer a comprehensive opposing point of view. On the rare occasions when someone from 9/11 Truth was given air time, observe how they were treated:
- They were often marginalized by the "objective" host as early as their introduction, and certainly in loaded adjectives used in the questions and descriptions (e.g., nutty, loony, kooky).
- They rarely appeared alone, but always with someone representing the government's view. Because the host in many cases was not impartial, they were outnumbered.
- The discussions were steered into truly fringe areas of the movement, and the attention-deficit host jumped from one topic to another.
- After the small talk, commercial breaks (lead-out, lead-in), other side rebuttals, fast topic-hops, and detours away from the most solid arguments, the total airtime to present a case dissenting with the official 9/11 view was tiny.
Treatment of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the printed media may have been worst of all. Has Time Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, or the New York Times ever devoted a special issue to this topic from the 9/11 Truth Movement's point-of-view? Have they even ever published an in-depth article (or series of articles) presenting faithfully the 9/11 Truth Movement's case without undermining it in the very same article, not to mention accompanying ones?
Whereas hometown newspapers retained their names, consolidation turned them into mini-McGannetts always drawing on the same pool of articles. The first hurdle is whether local editors would even run the story. The second hurdle is how much hacking they'd do prior to publication. The third hurdle is where they'd run it (e.g., bury it) and split it to make it more difficult for a reader to find and follow.
"The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel."
Government spokespeople (and its agencies) wanted the public to "charge forward" into Afghanistan and Iraq [and into neo-con policies provided by PNAC] on the basis of how the United States was attacked 9/11. You were un-patriotic, un-American, and even treasonous if you didn't want pre-emptive war to protect the homeland... and if you didn't want fewer taxes on the wealthy, privatized social security, bail-outs...
Yet whenever someone said, "Okay, let's look at 9/11 in detail" so that we can be sure we're hunting the right witches, those same government spokespeople and agencies said, "Move along, sheople. Nothing to see here."
Whenever 9/11 is discussed in this forum, the unofficial (?) government spokespeople are talented at kicking sand into our eyes with pseudo-science, quasi-definitive official reports, rehashed debunked claims, straw man discussions, and outright lies, and at distracting us into flame wars with their insults.
We have many examples of cover-ups in how government commissions and (scientific) agencies were manipulated to limit the scope and conclusions of their investigations. Adequate and overwhelming evidence has been provided to caste doubt on the government's 9/11 version, such as these three, which are solidly based on the laws of physics:
* WTC7 in Freefall
No Longer Controversial
* Downward Acceleration of the North Tower
* WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)
The above should really shut-up all defenders and trolls of the governments 9/11 version and turn them into true believers of 9/11 Truth. But it won't. Why?
Fear.
They are afraid of what it will mean to our republic. They're afraid that it will mean massive civil unrest, total chaos, and the attempt at destructive overthrow of all institutions of power. Because those in power will use all in their power to remain in power, they fear the loss of power and stature, if not the oppressive response of government on its people.
I believe that this argument is just more fear-mongering and Kool-Aid for the weak-minded to manipulate patriots and Christians.
The real unspoken fear is the massive reduction in power of the federal government transferred, if not to the states, than to the regional countries that banded together to succeed from the old union in the hopes of forming a more perfect (smaller) union.
States Rights and gaining some autonomy from the (proven misguided) Federal Government and corrupt corporate influence can't be achieved today. So we are left with flag-waving in support of illegal wars, failed drug wars, and other draconically federal policies.
Just like mammoth corporations often require divisions to be spun off into their own businesses, lest the aims of the corporation and of the division become at odds with one another, the United States of America as we know it is also in need of having various regions (one or more neighboring states) with shared cultural values spun off into their own nations.
Thomas "Tip" O'Neill once declared, "All Politics is local." Politics needs to be brought more local. Although such spin-off regional nations sound radical, it would really be pretty much business as usual for you and I and for the governments of our community, town, county, and state.
