Paul Craig Roberts is a bit of a jeremiah:
…the American population is so divided and mutually hostile that there is no restraint by “the American people” on government and the elite oligarchs that rule.
When I first read this, I immediately thought how Americans were either pro-Trump or anti-Trump. But I then thought how they were either pro-smoking or anti-smoking. And also were either global warming alarmists or global warming sceptics.
All at each other’s throats.
In the United States today, and throughout “Western Brainwashed Civilization,” only a handful of people exist who are capable of differentiating the real from the created reality in which all explanations are controlled and kept as far away from the truth as possible.
Everything that every Western government and “news” organization says is a lie to control the explanations that we are fed in order to keep us locked in The Matrix.
How do you “differentiate between the real and the created reality”? That sounds like a pretty tall order. It’s not straightforward. Some people believe that smoking kills, and some people don’t. Some people believe that carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming, and some people don’t. They inhabit separate realities. It’s not immediately obvious which realities are real, and which ones are “created realities” or inventions.
But Roberts isn’t talking about Trump or smoking or global warming.
The ability to control people’s understandings is so extraordinary that, despite massive evidence to the contrary, Americans believe that Oswald, acting alone, was the best shot in human history and using magic bullets killed President John F. Kennedy; that a handful of Saudi Arabians who demonstratively could not fly airplanes outwitted the American national security state and brought down 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon; that Saddam Hussein had and was going to use on the US “weapons of mass destruction;”…..
Does it really matter who killed Kennedy? Does it really matter who brought down the WTC?
I’ve taken a lot of interest in the JFK assassination. Rather less in 9/11. And in both cases I’ve mostly been of the conventional belief that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK, and it was a handful of hijackers that brought down the WTC.
And there were some perfectly rational reasons underlying both beliefs. In the case of the WTC, the buildings were present in Flight Simulator 2, and they lay not far off the flight path of one of New York’s airports. And it wasn’t too difficult to fly a plane into the WTC. I nearly did it myself quite frequently (which is why I thought that the idea had come from someone who’d been playing Flight Simulator 2 which had wireframe buildings like shown at right ). What’s difficult in Flight Simulator 2 isn’t flying around in the sky, but taking off and landing – with landing being the hardest thing of all.
But that was my experience of playing Flight Simulator 2 quite often back in about 1995. I thought that it was perfectly possible for a bunch of people to fly jets into the WTC, after hijacking them in the air after the difficult bit (taking off) had been done. There might be other questions surrounding 9/11, but for me there wasn’t any question about whether the hijackers could have done it. I thought they could have easily done it.
As for JFK, I also had a rational reason for believing Oswald did it. And this was that it seemed to me that any gunman would want to fire in the direction that JFK’s car was moving, either from behind or in front. Having a shooter off at one side meant that he’d have to be traversing his gun to keep JFK in his sights. And I didn’t think that could be an easy thing to do, because guns are quite heavy things, particularly rifles.
In this respect my only experience of guns was with air rifles. My grandfather had one, and it was pretty heavy and unwieldy. I had my own one later, which was lighter, but still quite heavy. And whenever you see people firing rifles they’re almost always aiming them at fixed targets. Because it’s much harder to hit moving targets than fixed ones.
So I thought that Oswald most likely did it, because he was directly behind the motorcade, and shooting down into it (view right), and it would have taken only a slight adjustment in aim to fire off 3 shots in quick succession (although I have zero experience of firing bolt action rifles with telescopic sights).
Furthermore, I couldn’t see that there was any obvious place that a shooter could have been positioned directly in front of the motorcade. that wouldn’t require firing through the car’s windscreen.
And that’s why for a long time I thought Oswald did it – until I discovered the storm drain on Elm Street, which was in front of the motorcade, but not shooting through a car windscreen, and much nearer.
My point is that people can have perfectly rational reasons for believing that Oswald killed JFK and that a handful of hijackers flew planes into the WTC. And there’s no reason to suppose that some people have “the ability to control people’s understandings.” I think my reasons for believing the official accounts were that they seemed perfectly plausible, given my limited personal experience of planes and guns. It’s not really that there’s a Matrix that people need to take Red Pills to escape. It’s just that there are different explanations for the same event, and some people find some accounts more plausible than others.
It’s the same with smoking. Some people (most people) believe that smoking causes lung cancer. And some people don’t.
Or global warming. Some people believe that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing global warming. And some people don’t.
And in all these cases there’ll be a consensus view, or an authoritative opinion. And it shouldn’t be too surprising if most people, in all these various matters, adopt the authoritative consensus opinion. They’ll believe the doctors about smoking, the IPCC climate scientists about global warming, the 9/11 Commission about the WTC, and the Warren Commission about JFK. And it’s not a crazy or stupid thing to do, to place one’s trust in authorities, or in the consensus. The only thing that’s crazy is to unquestioningly believe authorities and experts. Because they aren’t always right, just like they aren’t always wrong. The real Red Pill is thinking for yourself.
And JFK and 9/11 are also, it seems to me, events that don’t really matter, because they’re shocking events in the past, the consequences of which were played out in the immediate years afterwards. However the smoking dispute and the global warming dispute are ones whose consequences will be discovered in the future, in a world in which smoking may be made illegal, and carbon dioxide designated a banned substance. We can’t do anything to undo either 9/11 or the JFK assassination. But we can do something to avert future ubiquitous and draconian tobacco and carbon dioxide bans.