What Matters and What Doesn’t

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.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to What Matters and What Doesn’t

  1. Interesting. I agree with your take on the conspiracy theories and I’ve read and watched everything I could on the 9/11 conspiracy theory, as I find it fascinating, but still not true
    I’m not sure about ‘the past’ though. If you did discover that the Government was capable of killing 3000 citizens or killing a president it didn’t like, would you say, “oh well, it’s in the past”?
    That’s the trouble with Governments; they’re secretive. And when they are secretive, people expect them to be secretive, so people believe the Government is involved in deep and dark conspiracies, because that’s what they been led to expect of them
    Maybe that’s why the modern conspiracy theories, smoking causes lung cancer, CO2 causes global warming, are perpetuated by charities and scientists and the Governments only pretend to be acting on what they’ve been told by trustworthy people?
    Maybe people will be more likely to drink the Kool Aid if it isn’t being served up directly by people they’ve come to think of as secretive and untrustworthy?

    • Frank Davis says:

      I’m sure that the government is capable of killing 3000 people and a president it didn’t like. But did it actually do so? I’m not sure it did.

      • Joe L. says:

        I see your point that JFK and 9/11 are in the past, so there’s nothing we can do to change those events. However, I agree with Bucko that these events are still very important and relevant, because a healthy skepticism of the “official narrative” put forth by “experts” and “authorities” would help some people see through the Antismoking propaganda.

        I must add though, in my own research into conpiracy theories, it seems that many so-called “conspiracy theorists” these days sadly unquestionably believe in the “Big Tobacco” conspiracy theories to the extent that they refuse to even entertain the idea that the Antismoking movement is part of a larger conspiracy invloving the pharmaceutical industry (another commenter here once called the whole shebang the “Medical Industrial Complex,” a term that I loved and have since appropriated), which has had a far greater negative impact on our society. This is one major reason I dislike the term “Big Pharma” because it is a derivative of “Big Tobacco”; those who use it believe that the pharmaceutical industry is “just as bad” as the tobacco industry. But I believe the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries have done far worse things than the tobacco industry has ever done.

  2. smokingscot says:

    So Mark Drakeford is the new first minister in Wales.

    He’s a Momentum guy and a Corbyn groupie, so closer to communism than socialism.


    And he intends to make the centres of all Welsh towns smoke- free.


    I hate to be presumptuous, however I’d be inclined to add a caveat, so the wish reads

    “all Welsh towns smoke-free during daylight hours”.

  3. waltc says:

    Conspiracy theories sprout in the holes of the official stories. There are no holes in the whodunit of Sept 11. Richard Condon’s satiric novel, “Winter Kills” explores all the popular alt theories on JFK that might grow from some holes but its expressed message is that the govt and the press create or advance “scenarios” — often so many and so conflicting as to bedazzle the public with the actual brainwashing technique of so much conflicting “information” that the public just throws up its hands and goes “fuckit.” As for JFK, tho I agree with buck, I go with fuckit (aka Oswald) though it’s interesting that the locked-away-for-fifty-years files on the assassination, were not released as promised but re-locked-away. One might wonder why.

    I begin to at least wonder if there isn’t a current conspiracy at many levels of government to hobble Trump, even when it works against the national interest. Why was a speculative tidbit of news with “Russia ” implications released exactly the night before he was to meet with Putin at the conference last week? Why was the Chinese woman arrested WHILE he was meeting with Xi for trade talks? And though if actual evidence turns up that he’s done something actually impeachable, I’ll be willing to accept it, the whole Meuller Investigation so far smacks to me of star chamber– a secret tribunal, a Stalinist show trial where people are being threatened into making false confessions by a relentless Javert. So far, tonight, they’re trying to turn the bimbo payoffs into a federal finance campaign violation and turn that into a felony and turn that into an impeachable offense, whereas other pols under similar charges have just said Oops and then paid a fine.

    • Joe L. says:

      Conspiracy theories sprout in the holes of the official stories. There are no holes in the whodunit of Sept 11.

      While I personally think there are far more holes in the “howdidit” of 9/11 (e.g., what are the chances that all three WTC buildings would collapse almost perfectly vertically into their own footprints?), I believe there are still holes in the “whodunit.” For instance, Osama bin Laden didn’t proudly claim responsibility for masterminding the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil; in fact he bluntly denied it. Seems a counterintuitive reaction from someone who supposedly was trying to encourage an Anti-American jihadi movement.

  4. smokingscot says:

    Oops, students at a Canadian campus oppose a blanket smoking ban in their grounds, one reason being they are all adults, another it includes pot smoking!


    Apparently the article should not be visible to us in the EU, but I got it just fine.

    • Joe L. says:

      It’s nice to see unity between tobacco and pot smokers for once. In recent years, many pot smokers (and many vapers) have seemed to adopt this self-righteous “What I inhale is healthy, unlike tobacco” attitude, when instead they should have been saying “Look what they’re doing to tobacco smokers. If we don’t stand up for them, we’re next!” United we stand, divided we fall.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.