So why do most people remain blissfully unaware of the Big Lie? Here's why:
Showing posts with label Cognitive Dissonance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cognitive Dissonance. Show all posts
Psychologists Explain 9/11 Denial
The government's lame explanation about what happened on 9/11 cannot - by any stretch of the imagination - possibly be true.
Cognitive Dissonance: Using doubt and discomfort to acknowledge reality
"We are all born ignorant, but it takes hard work to remain stupid."
- Nietzche
- Nietzche
Cognitive Dissonance is a term in psychology that describes the feeling of conflicting tension experienced by a person when they hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
Since both beliefs or ideas cannot at the same time be true, a person will feel uncomfortable and start trying to figure out a way to reconcile the beliefs so they don't seem to be in conflict anymore or until the discomfort seems to be relieved.
Dissonance is more likely to happen if the major idea is about who we are or concerns a belief system or worldview that we embrace. Dissonance increases with the importance of the subject to us, how strongly the dissonant thoughts are in conflict, and our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict given how we know the real world works.
The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior.
The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors even if this justification is itself irrational, illogical, or embraces superstitious and/or 'magical thinking'.
Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people's ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony, or consonance.
A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right choice." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices.
Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the rejection of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms like denial, intellectualization, altruism, introjection, and suppression.
ED NOTE: More on this subject later. . . it is important to spreading the Truth of 9/11
9/11 Victim family member Bob McIlvaine puts a human face on 9/11
The Treason in America Conference
Valley Forge, PA., 03/06/10.
This man lost his son on 9/11 - and the heart break just doesn't go away. Bob McIlvaine is a powerful spokesman for the Truth of 9/11.
Part 2
Part 3
Troy (Somebody-or-other) is an extreme example of "Cognitive Dissonance" as he speaks to Bob McIlvaine who tries to tell the Truth of 9/11. It's tough to listen to this and we can't get to the end:
In response, Bob's other son posted this:
"I am Bob McIlvaine's other son, and I just want to say on record that I have never been so proud of my father in my life. I support everything he does 100%. The fact that he can keep his cool during this phone call shows what an amazing person he is. Just so this punk knows, not only does his entire family support him, but almost anyone he talks to with an open mind supports him. Lets all hope that Troy and I don't ever cross paths."
Valley Forge, PA., 03/06/10.
This man lost his son on 9/11 - and the heart break just doesn't go away. Bob McIlvaine is a powerful spokesman for the Truth of 9/11.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Troy (Somebody-or-other) is an extreme example of "Cognitive Dissonance" as he speaks to Bob McIlvaine who tries to tell the Truth of 9/11. It's tough to listen to this and we can't get to the end:
In response, Bob's other son posted this:
"I am Bob McIlvaine's other son, and I just want to say on record that I have never been so proud of my father in my life. I support everything he does 100%. The fact that he can keep his cool during this phone call shows what an amazing person he is. Just so this punk knows, not only does his entire family support him, but almost anyone he talks to with an open mind supports him. Lets all hope that Troy and I don't ever cross paths."
The Psychology of 9/11: Collective Trauma, Cognitive Dissonance, and Healing
A Reconstruction of a U-Tube Talk for Richard Gage on June 21, 2010
Professor William R. Woodward
University of New Hampshire
I am Professor William Woodward. I have taught history of psychology at a state university, the University of New Hampshire, for 35 years. I have a Ph.D. in history of science and a master’s in psychology. I have edited four books and published over twenty peer-reviewed papers (e.g., Woodward & Ash, 1982, Ash & Woodward, 1987, Woodward & Cohen, 1991, Smith & Woodward, 1996, Woodward, 2008).
I would like to speak about the public perception of 9/11. Psychology has a lot to offer for understanding how the public reacted over the past eight or so years. I will apply the insights, drawn from experimental and clinical research, from the theories of psychoanalysis, social psychology, and cognitive-behavioral psychology.
The initial event caused a collective trauma. Like the Kennedy assassination, most in my generation can still remember what we were doing when we got the news. Similarly, for most of us, the images of planes flying into those tall World Trade Center buildings will never go away. It may haunt us when we sleep. We want to talk about it, or we don’t want to talk about it. Either way, it is a cognition lodged in our minds.
This memory is what psychologists call a cognition. According to the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance, we unconsciously try to harmonize our cognitions, or to make them consonant (Festinger, 1957). When we encounter a shock like 9/11, we naturally look for causes right away. Finding cause and effect helps to produce consonance between cognitions.
The cause was actually provided by our national media, rather surprisingly, within the first day or two of the attack. We experienced it with “shock and awe.” We saw the faces of all 19 Arab hijackers on television. We saw the planes going into the buildings, over and over. We saw the hole in the Pentagon. That was it. And that is where many people remained -- with what I will call “the official theory” of 9/11. This official story helped many to reduce their cognitive dissonance, to reconcile the attack with a ready story of the perpetrators. Our president even provided a motive: they hate our freedoms. Others looked deeper and reasoned that they hated our bases on their sovereign lands.
Others, however, experienced a different cognitive dissonance. They saw this shocking event and became suspicious of the official story, either right away or gradually over a period of months and years. I am in the latter category. It was a local group who gave me the moral support to push on toward the truth. We began by reading Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert (2004). He suggested that this was a state crime motivated by diminishing resources.
Why was there no criminal investigation? Why did our leaders and our media immediately call for a “war on terror?” Does an unsolved, un-investigated crime, provide a reason for aggression, particularly against countries unrelated to the attackers? The cognitive dissonance of these questioning persons did not go away. Surprisingly, no investigation was forthcoming. How was it that the planes were not intercepted? Why were no bodies found? Why did the buildings fall so quickly? Led by the Jersey widows and a bevy of 9/11 authors, we kept asking questions and not getting answers.
Meanwhile, another psychological operation was also going on. Our fears of attack were being reinforced. Every time we go to an airport, we are subjected to monitoring and security wands. This excessive security behavior combined with a media drumbeat over “terrorists” and “suicide attacker,” completely replacing the rhetoric of “communism” that we heard up until 1990. So the believers in our vulnerability to attack, however remote statistically, had strong cognitions of fear.
Others were less sure that we should be afraid of attack but were quite afraid of the Patriot Act and the suddenness of its implementation, the loss of civil liberties, and rise of renditions and the sweeps of Muslims into custody and the abrogation of habeus corpus. This group of questioners found itself subject to censure and marginalization. I myself was scapegoated as “the nutty professor.” Yet no one in the media answered my questions. How was this? To question is unpatriotic? To be anti-war is to be anti-U.S.? We were being punished and told not to do what our constitution gave us the right and responsibility to do. To fight against tyranny.
This combination of reinforcement and punishment fits in with cognitive behavioral theory and its application. Some cognitions – namely the official story – were reinforced. Others – the alternative stories and the questions – were punished. Strange, indeed. Even the anti-war peace communities, the social activists, split over this issue.
Let me just mention one more cognition: the enemy image based on a stereotype of the evil Arab. People in the street, and especially on airplanes, actually began to fear Muslims and their places of worship, simply as a result of the widely disseminated negative images of Muslim attackers. Never mind that the alleged hijackers were found not to be carousers, not religious fanatics, and to have been recruited by the CIA, or issued passports under official orders over the objections of local embassy staff (Tarpley, 2006). Yet the stereotype stuck.
Why? Because of the anchor effect. The first story is the one that sticks. This is well known in media circles. The first video clips define the event, as in the recent attack on an unarmed aid flotilla. The media conveyed that armed soldiers were brutally attacked by unarmed passengers. Only later did we learn that virtually all the cameras and photos of the unarmed passengers had been confiscated. Control of the media is clearly the objective. The first three days tell the story. Even a skewed and filtered story.
So now we have a traumatic event, and a trauma that some had made consonant, and others had still found to be dissonant. Even those folks have gradually achieved consonance by reading books like The New Pearl Harbor (Griffin, 2004), listening to alternative media such as 911truth.org, and supporting local 9/11 groups. Their consonance came to rest on a very different story from the official one. But at least it made sense because of the enormous pattern of evidence.
Both camps looked forward to the 9/11 Commission Report, though we heard disquieting reports that the President and Vice President were not submitting to interviews under oath, that they had a set a time limit for the investigation and then stonewalled providing documents, as if to run down the clock. This did not make sense, unless of course one shifted and realized that perhaps they had something to hide. Then it made sense again, and became consonant.
Then came the book The 9/11 Commission Report. Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin. It detailed over 500 contradictions in the official story. Surprisingly again, this book did not appear in airport bookstores, while the official 9/11 Commission Report did (Kean & Hamilton, 2004). Nor did university libraries stock 9/11 books. This suggests fear, and the fact that only small publishers dared to publish about 9/11, and these publishers were missing from standing order library lists. A student doing research was more likely to find the pseudo-scientific account in Popular Mechanics (by a relative of Michael Chertoff, 2009) than the science-based one from Olive Branch Press (Griffin, 2007).
A psychoanalytic perspective will shed light here. When we encounter an anxiety-producing object, we use defense mechanisms – unconsciously – to ward it off. We use denial, projecting, rationalization, repression, sublimation, and other psychological mechanisms. That seemed to be happening here: many people were afraid of even reading about the “omissions and distortions” or indeed, any 9/11 book at all. They feared punishment, rightly so, since libraries now had to keep user records to preserve “security.” Others projected “conspiracy” motives onto us! How ironic, since our questions were pointing to a dark “conspiracy” within international elites – “the official conspiracy theory” (Griffin, 2007). Psychologists would call this projection on the part of the adherents of the official story.
Healing, as clinical psychologists know, comes through exposing the conflicts in our unconscious, experiencing the painful memories again, and catharsis of the emotions. This cleansing through facing the truth, bit by bit, is cathartic.
We as citizens bear a responsibility to face the truth about whatever happened on 9/11. Our wars have done so much horrendous damage to others – 6 million plus refugees, over a million dead through sanctions and war. It is almost too much to ask that we acknowledge through open inquiry, scientific and legal, that the 9/11 events have not been impartially investigated yet, despite the best efforts of volunteers. The movement needs professionals from all backgrounds, and the website Patriots Question 9/11 tell you who is on board in your discipline.
The outcome of such a psychological truth-telling could be curative for a sick soul – the soul of the United States of America and its close ally Israel. Without scientific truth, we will be condemned to live multiple lies – like addicts in the clutches of blind cravings. With the application of international law, the replacement of greedy resource wars with economic and social justice, we have the tools to expose the collective trauma and heal ourselves and the world community. We believe that encouragement of scientific inquiry about 9/11 has the power to transform the world into a cooperative community (Korten, 2007). So do the 1200 “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” (ae911truth.com), along with hundreds of other professionals contributing to truth-telling (patriotsquestion911.com).
Contact Professor Woodward at: woodward (at) unh (dot) edu
References (and a good reading list):
Ash, M. G. & Woodward, W. R. (Eds.)(1987). Psychology in twentieth-century thought and society. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Chertoff, M. (2009). Homeland security. Assessing the first five years. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, Ill. Row Peterson.
Griffin, D. R. (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing questions about the Bush administration and 9/11. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press.
Griffin, D. R. (2005). The 9/11 Commission report. Omissions and distortions. Northampton: Olive Branch Press.
Griffin, D. R. (2007). Debunking 9/11 debunking. An answer to Popular Mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Northampton: Olive Branch Press.
Kean, T. & Hamilton, L. (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks upon the United States. N.Y.: Norton. (Actually written by Philip Zelikow).
Korten, D. (2007). The great turning: From empire to earth community. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Ruppert, M. (2004). Crossing the Rubicon: The decline of the American empire at the end of the age of oil. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers.
Smith, L. & Woodward, W. R. (Eds.)(1996). B. F. Skinner and behaviorism in American culture. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.
Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Made in USA. Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press.
Woodward, W. (2008). A mediatized event: Boundary work in the construction of 9/11 truth In T. Brandstetter, D. Rupnow, & C. Wessely (Eds.). Festschrift Mitchell G. Ash, Sachunterricht. Fundstücke aus der Wissenschaftsgeschichte (pp. 17-22). Vienna: Löcker Verlag.
Woodward, W. R. & Ash, M. G. (Eds.) (1982). The problematic science. Psychology in 19th century thought. N.Y.: Praeger.
Woodward, W. R. & Cohen, R. S. (Eds.) (1991). World views and scientific discipline formation. Science studies in the German Democratic Republic. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
Professor William R. Woodward
University of New Hampshire
I am Professor William Woodward. I have taught history of psychology at a state university, the University of New Hampshire, for 35 years. I have a Ph.D. in history of science and a master’s in psychology. I have edited four books and published over twenty peer-reviewed papers (e.g., Woodward & Ash, 1982, Ash & Woodward, 1987, Woodward & Cohen, 1991, Smith & Woodward, 1996, Woodward, 2008).
I would like to speak about the public perception of 9/11. Psychology has a lot to offer for understanding how the public reacted over the past eight or so years. I will apply the insights, drawn from experimental and clinical research, from the theories of psychoanalysis, social psychology, and cognitive-behavioral psychology.
The initial event caused a collective trauma. Like the Kennedy assassination, most in my generation can still remember what we were doing when we got the news. Similarly, for most of us, the images of planes flying into those tall World Trade Center buildings will never go away. It may haunt us when we sleep. We want to talk about it, or we don’t want to talk about it. Either way, it is a cognition lodged in our minds.
This memory is what psychologists call a cognition. According to the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance, we unconsciously try to harmonize our cognitions, or to make them consonant (Festinger, 1957). When we encounter a shock like 9/11, we naturally look for causes right away. Finding cause and effect helps to produce consonance between cognitions.
The cause was actually provided by our national media, rather surprisingly, within the first day or two of the attack. We experienced it with “shock and awe.” We saw the faces of all 19 Arab hijackers on television. We saw the planes going into the buildings, over and over. We saw the hole in the Pentagon. That was it. And that is where many people remained -- with what I will call “the official theory” of 9/11. This official story helped many to reduce their cognitive dissonance, to reconcile the attack with a ready story of the perpetrators. Our president even provided a motive: they hate our freedoms. Others looked deeper and reasoned that they hated our bases on their sovereign lands.
Others, however, experienced a different cognitive dissonance. They saw this shocking event and became suspicious of the official story, either right away or gradually over a period of months and years. I am in the latter category. It was a local group who gave me the moral support to push on toward the truth. We began by reading Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert (2004). He suggested that this was a state crime motivated by diminishing resources.
Why was there no criminal investigation? Why did our leaders and our media immediately call for a “war on terror?” Does an unsolved, un-investigated crime, provide a reason for aggression, particularly against countries unrelated to the attackers? The cognitive dissonance of these questioning persons did not go away. Surprisingly, no investigation was forthcoming. How was it that the planes were not intercepted? Why were no bodies found? Why did the buildings fall so quickly? Led by the Jersey widows and a bevy of 9/11 authors, we kept asking questions and not getting answers.
Meanwhile, another psychological operation was also going on. Our fears of attack were being reinforced. Every time we go to an airport, we are subjected to monitoring and security wands. This excessive security behavior combined with a media drumbeat over “terrorists” and “suicide attacker,” completely replacing the rhetoric of “communism” that we heard up until 1990. So the believers in our vulnerability to attack, however remote statistically, had strong cognitions of fear.
Others were less sure that we should be afraid of attack but were quite afraid of the Patriot Act and the suddenness of its implementation, the loss of civil liberties, and rise of renditions and the sweeps of Muslims into custody and the abrogation of habeus corpus. This group of questioners found itself subject to censure and marginalization. I myself was scapegoated as “the nutty professor.” Yet no one in the media answered my questions. How was this? To question is unpatriotic? To be anti-war is to be anti-U.S.? We were being punished and told not to do what our constitution gave us the right and responsibility to do. To fight against tyranny.
This combination of reinforcement and punishment fits in with cognitive behavioral theory and its application. Some cognitions – namely the official story – were reinforced. Others – the alternative stories and the questions – were punished. Strange, indeed. Even the anti-war peace communities, the social activists, split over this issue.
Let me just mention one more cognition: the enemy image based on a stereotype of the evil Arab. People in the street, and especially on airplanes, actually began to fear Muslims and their places of worship, simply as a result of the widely disseminated negative images of Muslim attackers. Never mind that the alleged hijackers were found not to be carousers, not religious fanatics, and to have been recruited by the CIA, or issued passports under official orders over the objections of local embassy staff (Tarpley, 2006). Yet the stereotype stuck.
Why? Because of the anchor effect. The first story is the one that sticks. This is well known in media circles. The first video clips define the event, as in the recent attack on an unarmed aid flotilla. The media conveyed that armed soldiers were brutally attacked by unarmed passengers. Only later did we learn that virtually all the cameras and photos of the unarmed passengers had been confiscated. Control of the media is clearly the objective. The first three days tell the story. Even a skewed and filtered story.
So now we have a traumatic event, and a trauma that some had made consonant, and others had still found to be dissonant. Even those folks have gradually achieved consonance by reading books like The New Pearl Harbor (Griffin, 2004), listening to alternative media such as 911truth.org, and supporting local 9/11 groups. Their consonance came to rest on a very different story from the official one. But at least it made sense because of the enormous pattern of evidence.
Both camps looked forward to the 9/11 Commission Report, though we heard disquieting reports that the President and Vice President were not submitting to interviews under oath, that they had a set a time limit for the investigation and then stonewalled providing documents, as if to run down the clock. This did not make sense, unless of course one shifted and realized that perhaps they had something to hide. Then it made sense again, and became consonant.
Then came the book The 9/11 Commission Report. Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin. It detailed over 500 contradictions in the official story. Surprisingly again, this book did not appear in airport bookstores, while the official 9/11 Commission Report did (Kean & Hamilton, 2004). Nor did university libraries stock 9/11 books. This suggests fear, and the fact that only small publishers dared to publish about 9/11, and these publishers were missing from standing order library lists. A student doing research was more likely to find the pseudo-scientific account in Popular Mechanics (by a relative of Michael Chertoff, 2009) than the science-based one from Olive Branch Press (Griffin, 2007).
A psychoanalytic perspective will shed light here. When we encounter an anxiety-producing object, we use defense mechanisms – unconsciously – to ward it off. We use denial, projecting, rationalization, repression, sublimation, and other psychological mechanisms. That seemed to be happening here: many people were afraid of even reading about the “omissions and distortions” or indeed, any 9/11 book at all. They feared punishment, rightly so, since libraries now had to keep user records to preserve “security.” Others projected “conspiracy” motives onto us! How ironic, since our questions were pointing to a dark “conspiracy” within international elites – “the official conspiracy theory” (Griffin, 2007). Psychologists would call this projection on the part of the adherents of the official story.
Healing, as clinical psychologists know, comes through exposing the conflicts in our unconscious, experiencing the painful memories again, and catharsis of the emotions. This cleansing through facing the truth, bit by bit, is cathartic.
We as citizens bear a responsibility to face the truth about whatever happened on 9/11. Our wars have done so much horrendous damage to others – 6 million plus refugees, over a million dead through sanctions and war. It is almost too much to ask that we acknowledge through open inquiry, scientific and legal, that the 9/11 events have not been impartially investigated yet, despite the best efforts of volunteers. The movement needs professionals from all backgrounds, and the website Patriots Question 9/11 tell you who is on board in your discipline.
The outcome of such a psychological truth-telling could be curative for a sick soul – the soul of the United States of America and its close ally Israel. Without scientific truth, we will be condemned to live multiple lies – like addicts in the clutches of blind cravings. With the application of international law, the replacement of greedy resource wars with economic and social justice, we have the tools to expose the collective trauma and heal ourselves and the world community. We believe that encouragement of scientific inquiry about 9/11 has the power to transform the world into a cooperative community (Korten, 2007). So do the 1200 “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” (ae911truth.com), along with hundreds of other professionals contributing to truth-telling (patriotsquestion911.com).
Contact Professor Woodward at: woodward (at) unh (dot) edu
References (and a good reading list):
Ash, M. G. & Woodward, W. R. (Eds.)(1987). Psychology in twentieth-century thought and society. N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Chertoff, M. (2009). Homeland security. Assessing the first five years. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, Ill. Row Peterson.
Griffin, D. R. (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing questions about the Bush administration and 9/11. Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press.
Griffin, D. R. (2005). The 9/11 Commission report. Omissions and distortions. Northampton: Olive Branch Press.
Griffin, D. R. (2007). Debunking 9/11 debunking. An answer to Popular Mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Northampton: Olive Branch Press.
Kean, T. & Hamilton, L. (2004). The 9/11 Commission Report: Final report of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks upon the United States. N.Y.: Norton. (Actually written by Philip Zelikow).
Korten, D. (2007). The great turning: From empire to earth community. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Ruppert, M. (2004). Crossing the Rubicon: The decline of the American empire at the end of the age of oil. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers.
Smith, L. & Woodward, W. R. (Eds.)(1996). B. F. Skinner and behaviorism in American culture. Bethlehem: Lehigh University Press.
Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror. Made in USA. Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press.
Woodward, W. (2008). A mediatized event: Boundary work in the construction of 9/11 truth In T. Brandstetter, D. Rupnow, & C. Wessely (Eds.). Festschrift Mitchell G. Ash, Sachunterricht. Fundstücke aus der Wissenschaftsgeschichte (pp. 17-22). Vienna: Löcker Verlag.
Woodward, W. R. & Ash, M. G. (Eds.) (1982). The problematic science. Psychology in 19th century thought. N.Y.: Praeger.
Woodward, W. R. & Cohen, R. S. (Eds.) (1991). World views and scientific discipline formation. Science studies in the German Democratic Republic. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.
The Truth is Not Enough: How to Overcome Emotional Barriers to 9/11 Truth
by Ken Jenkins
May 1, 2009
How many times has this happened to you? You are explaining to someone some of the rational, logical reasons why the official story of 9/11 can't be true, perhaps explaining how WTC 7 fell in the exact manner of a professionally planned controlled demolition -- a job which would typically take weeks to prepare -- when out comes a 'thought stopper' phrase like:
"That's just another conspiracy theory!" or ...
"Do you also believe in Big Foot and tin foil hats?"
Or perhaps the person gets angry and/or agitated. Facts no longer matter at that point, and you can tell the person does not want to hear any more. For example, the following response came from someone after they were given a 20-minute summary of 9/11 Truth information:
"I wouldn't believe that, even if it were true!"
That reaction defies all logic and reason. But it clearly illustrates just how irrational some peoples' defenses can be. Here are a few more honest responses/defenses:
"As long as my wife and kids are fine and we can live the life style we have, the truth is, I don't really care what happened on 9/11."
"I would not want to live in a world where such a thing could be true."
"You can't expect someone to listen to information that turns their world upside down."
"I'm not sure I want to know. If this is true, then up would be down and down would be up. My life would never be the same."
"Look, I have to admit that I seriously resist anyone messing with my worldview!"
Why So Much Resistance to 9/11 Truth?
Such reactions are emotionally based. 9/11 is a very emotionally charged issue. The source of the denial and resistance is FEAR. The implications of 9/11 Truth are very scary for most people to take in. Given that a part of our government's job description is keeping its citizens safe, it's terrifying to consider that a secret rogue part of our government will do just the opposite -- mass murder those very citizens, in order to advance dark agendas -- like wars for corporate empire. To further consider that associated 'secret teams' would then put out corporate media cover-up stories, in the form of an elaborate fantasy story backed up with planted evidence, and to think that story was nearly universally accepted without question -- this is the stuff of nightmares.
Then there is the difficulty of accepting the self-image shattering realization that we were duped by such cover story lies. 9/11 Truth suggests a very uncomfortable and disturbing worldview, especially to those new to such concepts. The intensity of fear brought up by these vast implications causes defense mechanisms to take over our rational thought processes. Such denial most often overrides rationality.
What's a 9/11 Truth Activist To Do?
How can we overcome such powerful denial? What knowledge about these emotional barriers can empower us to be more effective in reaching larger numbers of our fellow citizens?
Start out by asking questions to find out what the person you are addressing currently thinks and feels about the 9/11 Truth message. Adjust your approach based on what you hear. Based on their responses, reach out and connect though empathy, to express to them an understanding of their difficult position. It's not that hard to do -- after all, most of us went through a similar process of conversion at some point, when we were in denial and uninformed about 9/11. Let them know about your own doubts, how you had a difficult time believing that the official story was false. Explain how upsetting it was for you to consider the alternative -- those very inconvenient truths. Even for those of us who were not upset by the idea of 9/11 being an inside job, there was often a difficulty in wrapping our heads around the enormity of it all. Talk about your own difficulties in rejecting the official story.
Reasons for Resistance to the Truth
There are a number of valid reasons why many of us resist the truth of 9/11. What follows are some major ones.
A. The Big Lie: I'll start with the 'Big Lie' because it was the main barrier that kept me from fully accepting the truth of 9/11 as I was researching it in the weeks after the event. The sheer audacity of pulling off something so outrageous in broad daylight, thinking they would get away with it, and the large scale of it all kept me doubting for weeks. My turning point was learning about what really happened at Pearl Harbor -- the many warnings that were ignored, the Japanese secret codes that the US had broken, etc. This new understanding, that the attack on Pearl Harbor was clearly allowed to happen, was what finally had me fully accept 9/11 Truth. The comparable number that were deliberately mass murdered, the scale of the event, the audacity, and the 60 years of largely successful cover-up all showed me that a Big Lie had happened before, and worked to fool most of the public, and not all that long ago. It was only later I discovered these quotes:
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." ~ J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI
"The masses indulge in petty falsehoods every day, but it would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths. ... The bigger the lie, therefore, the likelier it is to be believed." ~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
B. Major Paradigm Shift: Questioning the official story of 9/11 threatens the foundations of our society, or at least seems to. It challenges our fellow citizens' belief systems regarding the nature of our government, and even the very nature of our nation. Such questioning is far more profound than, say, questioning a war. Accepting the truth of 9/11 is, for many, a major paradigm shift, an inverting of their worldview. Such shifts risk a period of chaos and uncertainty, which many find scary.
C. Blind Nationalist Faith: 9/11 Truth is a confrontation with the self-image that many Americans have -- of their country and of themselves. The self-image Americans have been sold though our school systems and media is that we are the exceptional nation, the good guys wearing the white hats, the bringers of democracy and freedom. Such nationalistic faith can exceed religious faith in its dogmatic blindness. David Ray Griffin has an article on this subject elsewhere in this issue. [See article ps. XX-XX] and, Dr. Griffin also addresses these issues in a DVD titled "9/11 and Nationalist Faith."
D. Projecting Parental Duties on Authorities: In his book As If We Were Grownups, author Jeff Golden's thoughtful assertion is that, "We consistently elect [political] candidates who tell us what children would want to hear. Children want to hear that everything is okay, that little is required of them, that they can go out and play or watch TV, and that they'll be taken care of and protected. In exchange, they are expected to be seen and not heard, to pay their taxes, to take their flu shots, and to not question the authorities."
E. Admission of Gullibility: Anyone we are introducing 9/11 Truth to now has believed the official story for years. To accept 9/11 Truth they have to admit they were duped, deceived, and manipulated for all that time. That brings up questions of gullibility, naïveté, lack of perceptiveness, obliviousness, etc. Most of us have resistance to admitting such shortcomings. Astronomer Carl Sagan sums it up nicely:
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous [i.e. gullible]."
F. The Rabbit Hole Effect -- Wider Implications: To believe 9/11 Truth, one also has to believe many other difficult truths, such as:
Parts of our corporate media must be incredibly corrupt to be complicit in such a massive cover-up;
There must be a powerful, secret, hidden government that is capable of planning and executing such a horrible and unthinkable act;
Some of our leaders are more corrupt and malicious than most of us would want to believe.
But one has only to remember the words of philosopher and statesman, Edmund Burke, to understand how corruption tends to prosper especially in good times:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
G. Apathy and Complacency: Radio talk show host Mike Rivero sheds some light on why so many people are apathetic and complacent about changing their beliefs:
"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
H. PTSD -- Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: 9/11 was first and foremost a psyop, shorthand for a Psychological Operation. It is a term used by secret services like the CIA to describe a class of operations that are intended to manipulate the emotions of populations; it is a form of mind control.
The specific intention of 9/11 was to terrorize the American people into supporting the so-called "war on terror," which is a replacement for the cold war's "war on communism." It's a blank check for the US government and the American military-industrial-complex to attack anyone, anywhere they want, anytime they want -- to support the empire.
The psyop initially worked for a vast majority of US citizens, and for many, it is still working.
The terror that so many felt during and after the attacks left many people, particularly in New York City, with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- PTSD. To revisit those events, as is necessary to expose the truth of 9/11, can retrigger that stress and add to the other discomforts that are already intrinsic to that same truth we are revealing. The desire to minimize re-experiencing that trauma causes people to back away. We need to go easy on those who exhibit such stress.
I. Lack of Knowledge of Historical Parallels or Patterns: While not strictly an emotional issue, the ignorance most people have about the many false flag events used to justify wars throughout history also has a psychological component. Our ability to conceptualize new information is dependent on having a frame of reference, that is, already knowing something similar, in order to be able to anchor a new thought. The lack of such historical reference points, therefore, can be yet another source of resistance. This blockage is perhaps the easiest one to deal with -- by educating people about the long history of false flag events used for triggering wars.
The Awakening Will Take Time
These are most of the major reasons why so many people resist 9/11 Truth. By understanding them, we can meet people with empathy and understanding, and have more patience with them. Patience is so important because for most, awakening to 9/11 Truth is a gradual process, often taking weeks, months, or even years. In light of that, try to be sensitive when presenting evidence, so as to notice when a person is 'full' -- when they have heard enough for the moment, and need space to digest and absorb the new, and often, disturbing concepts.
The good news is that with all that is happening now in our post-9/11 world, particularly with the public knowledge of the lies about WMDs and Saddam being linked to al Qaeda and 9/11 that led us into war with Iraq, people's minds are opening wider every day. More and more people are waking up to the degree of corruption and deception that is routine in our government. Every day they learn more about how the corporate media have been complicit in lies and cover-ups. Trust in such corporate and governmental institutions is now at an all time low, and dropping. This makes people far more open to the 9/11 Truth message. In a very real sense, our job is getting easier.
The truth alone is not enough, but the truth plus strategic thinking, planning and educating is enough to convince most fence-sitters. As David Hutton, author of The Change Agents' Handbook, says: "You do not have to spend a lot of time and effort on those who strongly resist change. You only have to help and protect those who want to change." Understanding the various emotional obstacles is an essential part of such a strategy.
It's been over seven years for some of us who have been working to expose the truth about 9/11. It will likely take several more years, but we will win -- as long as we work smart and don't give up. The truth will be revealed, and the resultant awakening will lead to the kind of deep changes that are so necessary to create a more positive future.
BIO: 9/11 activist and video producer Ken Jenkins has a degree in electrical engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University, and has done extensive postgraduate study in psychology. A pioneer in the 9/11 movement, Ken started presenting his PowerPoint and video productions on 9/11 Truth in early 2002, and has since spoken at five national 9/11 conferences. His first video, "Perspective on 9/11" was originally made for those early presentations. He has since produced ten DVDs with leading 9/11 Truth author David Ray Griffin, including "9/11 -- The Myth and the Reality". He is also a partner in 9/11 TV (911TV.org), which has documented speakers from many 9/11 conferences and events. The resulting DVDs are distributed partly through local cable access channels nationwide. By revealing the "false flag" nature of the 9/11 attacks, it is Ken's intention to not only help end the current bogus "war on terror" but to also open the way to ending war as a political option on this planet.
Source of original article at 911Truth.org
Change Blindness
Research and history about how Americans are as blind to US fascism as Nazi-era Germans:
By Carl Herman, LA County Nonpartisan Examiner
Psychological research demonstrates that large-scale dramatic change can escape attention when the change is unsuspected, unannounced, and agents causing the change act as if nothing is different. Two areas of this cognitive study are “change blindness” and “inattentional blindness.”
When we include consideration of “cognitive dissonance,” the rejection of facts when they conflict with important beliefs, we can approach an explanation of how educated citizens could accept fascism when it was unsuspected, unannounced, and the responsible agents fraudulently represented the new government as no different from the old. Cognitive dissonance would deter many people to accept the new reality, even when the facts were clear.
The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education. This “leadership” is only possible with a nationalistic public accepting policies of war, empire, and limited civil and political rights.
Yes, I am making the argument that the US is no longer a constitutinal republic, but a fascist regime that Americans are struggling with cognitive dissonance, change blindness, and inattentional blindness to recognize. Let’s look to history before we consider the US of the present and if we are afflicted with a kind of cognitive blindness to American fascism.
Fascism in Germany
Historically in Nazi Germany, Hitler wrote of the power of the “Big Lie”:
"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so are brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."
- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf , vol.1, ch. 10, 1925
This psychological factor, combined with German resentment against blame and payment for WW1, the Nazi partial implementation of monetary reform that created full employment and a successful economy in the middle of the Great Depression, set a frame of relative trust in government. Dissent was “re-educated” or crushed in work camps, propaganda and education lauded genuine economic infrastructure improvement parallel to military build-up. The downfall was the result of a critical mass of the public believing their government’s overall trustworthiness, and subsequently their story that the invasion of Poland was defensive against Germany being attacked. Germany framed their War of Aggression as their “War to save Europe;” a noble national defense against Britain and France's determination to keep Germany weak and non-competitive to their goals for imperialistic global domination, and against the rise of Bolshevism in Russia.
The demonized Jews were at first framed as dangerous to German national achievement. Their economic success as a group was framed as parasitism, and influence in the press as self-serving rather than in service to the nation. As a group, they became synonymous to terrorists.
Nazi Germany’s Master Plan
We now know that Nazi leadership’s goals were European domination and partnership with Britain in exchange for non-competition of their empire, and written by Hitler in his unpublished second book in 1928. The Nazi’s saw their goal of a unified Europe under their “superior” governance as a greater good that justified their “creative destruction” of inferior humans. They would lie to the German public as they advanced forward to accomplish what they perceived as a noble future for Germany, Europe, and eventually the world when Britain and Germany’s alliance would eventually absorb or defeat the US around 1980.
Does the US have a similar plan of fascist Nazi Germany for a “superior” American future that is worth wars and lies to accomplish? Let’s explore.
America’s Master Plan?
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) contributed over 20 of the Bush Administration’s “leadership,” including Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and other key positions in Defense and State Departments.
In 1992, then Secretary of Defense Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz produced a paper for the future strategic goals of the US following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The paper was leaked; among the goals was for the US to expand as the world's Superpower through our military to "establish and protect a new order." The report endorsed “pre-emptive” attacks and ad hoc coalitions for military objectives, but as an unrivaled Superpower should act independent of international agreement if "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The strategy included military plans for intervention in Iraq for US "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil."
In 1998, PNAC lobbied President Clinton for war with Iraq, independent of UN Security Council legal authority. In 2000, PNAC issued its report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century" (summary here). The report stated the goal of a “Pax Americana,” an American “peace” that would achieve US interests by the method of "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars." The US would usurp UN authority: "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations." The US would ensure its dominance through expansion of global military bases, now at over 700.
The report ominously included on page 63: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor." This would conveniently happen on 9/11; kicking in plans for invasion and hegemony in Afghanistan, Iraq, rhetoric for war with Iran, and now attacks in Pakistan.
How close is the US to fascism?
We’re there; the US is fascist. As a teacher of US government, I spend a lot of time with these basic definitions. Let’s look.
The US was formed as a constitutional republic; a political philosophy of limited government, separated powers with checks and balances to ensure the federal government’s power stays limited within the Constitution, protected civil liberties, and elected representatives responsible to the people who retain the most political power.
The US ideals that we embrace is equality under just laws, freedom of opportunity expressed through inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence, and creative independence to cooperatively compete for our best ideas to be rewarded.
Is this what we have today? Hardly. Let’s consider the salient evidence.
The US brazenly violates our laws of war, both demanded by the Constitution and the UN Charter, with open invasion of Afghanistan in abject violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and their government’s agreement to help extradite Osama bin Laden upon US presentment of evidence that he was involved in any crime of UN and/or international law. The US refused both the Afghan standard legal requirement of extradition and the UN resolution for cooperation under law and attacked. The new administration of Obama does not acknowledge this illegal history, but expands the invasion and attacks Pakistan. This policy is fascist, not limited by US law.
The US openly lied about reasons to justify an attack upon Iraq, destroying any semblance of argument of “self-defense.” The Obama administration won’t acknowledge the disclosed history from our own House and Senate investigations, and violates his oath of office to prosecute clear crimes. This policy is authoritarian, fascist, and does not hold equality under just laws. It is an un-American policy by definition.
The US tortured, with Obama refusing to prosecute and giving empty rhetoric to end it. The destruction of civil liberties to enforce authoritarian government is fascist, not American.
The US lies for more war with Iran, rejecting inalienable and legal rights for Iranians. Obama continues this policy of unlawful aggression, including official policy for first-strike nuclear weapons upon conclusion that Iran poses a possible future threat to the US and/or our allies. Political leaders and corporate media ignore the ignoble history of US vicious domination of Iranian government through coup and backed invasion. Fascist policy; un-American.
The US violates numerous treaty law with WMD, and hypocritically asserts our war targets' alleged violations justify US armed attack. This rejection of limited government under the law is a fascist empire on the loose, not a law-abiding neighbor. Added hypocrisy is the psychopathic front of American political leaders as Christians.
American corporatocracy is dominated by Enron-like cartels, headed by banks receiving the transfer of TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to pay-off their gambling debts in exotic derivative markets the federal government regulates only in more empty rhetoric. This socialization of corporate-insiders’ losses is fascist, and fundamentally in opposition of the American ideal of cooperative competition on a level playing field. Obvious financial solutions for the public good are ignored in their corporate and not public policy commitment.
While our government's official line is respect for Islam, their wars betray this analysis. If extremists were the small minority, why not peacefully cooperate to marginalize and arrest those in violation of just laws? Muslims as a group are often demonized in US media, and often the entire group is branded as terrorists. For example, consider the segment from the radio talk show of Michael Savage below.
The corporate media will not present such disturbing facts and analysis. Their outright lies of commission and omission are prima facie evidence of a controlled media, supported by revealed documentation from whistle-blowers. American freedom of the press is left to independent websites and those few media outlets who tolerate reporting such as you read now.
I was not rehired as a government teacher for presenting these documented facts in consideration of the most basic definitions among the first lessons in studying government. I am a Harvard-educated and National Board Certified teacher with a history including two Los Angeles mayors honoring me as one of the city’s top few teachers. I present facts far more boldly to a targeted adult journal audience than to high school-aged children preparing to enter adult civic participation. I put the disturbing information of US disclosed facts of war (mostly from House and Senate Committee reports) in writing and submitted it to peer-review to my social studies department colleagues and principal before distribution to students. No factual errors or bias was reported; the department chair and I met for an hour’s conversation of how to bridge expected denial of facts from cognitive dissonance. We concluded our first step to send a co-signed e-mail in affirmation of allowing professional factual discovery and discourse to lead our teaching. Despite having no error in fact or pedagogy reported to me, I was not rehired by the school board (we had moved back to California and as a second-year teacher in that district they could do so without explanation). I was denied any opportunity of discussion regarding the reason for my non-rehire. Although not a federal government example, I think it suggests a de facto control.
This is a good transition to consider cognitive blindness.
The 20th Century German public were well-educated, leaders in cultural achievement, and on the forefront of science. They were duped by emotionally-laden and polished propaganda to support brutal military aggression and mass murder.
We know from the Milgram Experiment and Stanford Prison Experiment that human beings are susceptible to vicious behavior under the veneer of authorized actions.
And we know from the following 4-minute video documenting a form of cognitive blindness, that unexpected fundamental change can go unrecognized when authority pretends nothing changed and nobody is there to point it out.
Policy response: Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated public understanding of the facts and non-cooperation with evil. I’m among hundreds who advocate:
Understand the laws of war. These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. This investment of your time takes less than an hour and empowers you to legally stand for ending these Wars of Aggression.
Refuse and end all orders and acts associated with these unlawful wars. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. Unlawful acts only move forward with sufficient cooperation and public tolerance. Stop cooperating with the most vicious crime a nation can commit: war. Stop tolerating it.
Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. You can only understand how these wars are specifically unlawful by investing the time to do so. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R either by volunteering their name and/or responding when named are subject to prosecution after the window of T&R closes.
Please share this article with all who can benefit and use the archive of my work to help build a brighter future. - Carl Herman
It should be noted to most people in any society the type of government matters not. Most people get up and work to feed their family and if they have extra money spend it on luxury items or travel if they have the ability or a passport. Most people don't travel and don't have luxury and don't need "freedoms" or protection of their rights in ANY form of government. Most people simply function on a level which runs society and is not concerned with larger issues.
Virtually all workers are exploited and wealth extracted from their labor. Virtually all workers are kept ignorant and in survival mode, unorganized and powerless to change anything. Most people have no idea of anything better or different and how they can know it.
Americans believe that they vote and get the government they want and deserve. But increasingly Americans have come to realize that voting, elections and government does not represent them but "special interests" which are those with wealth and power who want more - and trans national corporations which use the government simply to extract wealth from the working classes.
And most Americans have been too busy with pop culture and other personal distraction to learn about or understand that they are exploited and being poisoned, robbed and turned into wage slaves for their entire lives. And most American bought into the myth of endless growth and better living through "innovation" made possible by wall street.
Both the collapse and the clamp down are coming . . .
By Carl Herman, LA County Nonpartisan Examiner
Psychological research demonstrates that large-scale dramatic change can escape attention when the change is unsuspected, unannounced, and agents causing the change act as if nothing is different. Two areas of this cognitive study are “change blindness” and “inattentional blindness.”
When we include consideration of “cognitive dissonance,” the rejection of facts when they conflict with important beliefs, we can approach an explanation of how educated citizens could accept fascism when it was unsuspected, unannounced, and the responsible agents fraudulently represented the new government as no different from the old. Cognitive dissonance would deter many people to accept the new reality, even when the facts were clear.
The definition of “fascism” has some academic variance, but is essentially collusion among corporatocracy, authoritarian government, and controlled media and education. This “leadership” is only possible with a nationalistic public accepting policies of war, empire, and limited civil and political rights.
Yes, I am making the argument that the US is no longer a constitutinal republic, but a fascist regime that Americans are struggling with cognitive dissonance, change blindness, and inattentional blindness to recognize. Let’s look to history before we consider the US of the present and if we are afflicted with a kind of cognitive blindness to American fascism.
Fascism in Germany
Historically in Nazi Germany, Hitler wrote of the power of the “Big Lie”:
"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so are brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."
- Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf , vol.1, ch. 10, 1925
This psychological factor, combined with German resentment against blame and payment for WW1, the Nazi partial implementation of monetary reform that created full employment and a successful economy in the middle of the Great Depression, set a frame of relative trust in government. Dissent was “re-educated” or crushed in work camps, propaganda and education lauded genuine economic infrastructure improvement parallel to military build-up. The downfall was the result of a critical mass of the public believing their government’s overall trustworthiness, and subsequently their story that the invasion of Poland was defensive against Germany being attacked. Germany framed their War of Aggression as their “War to save Europe;” a noble national defense against Britain and France's determination to keep Germany weak and non-competitive to their goals for imperialistic global domination, and against the rise of Bolshevism in Russia.
The demonized Jews were at first framed as dangerous to German national achievement. Their economic success as a group was framed as parasitism, and influence in the press as self-serving rather than in service to the nation. As a group, they became synonymous to terrorists.
Nazi Germany’s Master Plan
We now know that Nazi leadership’s goals were European domination and partnership with Britain in exchange for non-competition of their empire, and written by Hitler in his unpublished second book in 1928. The Nazi’s saw their goal of a unified Europe under their “superior” governance as a greater good that justified their “creative destruction” of inferior humans. They would lie to the German public as they advanced forward to accomplish what they perceived as a noble future for Germany, Europe, and eventually the world when Britain and Germany’s alliance would eventually absorb or defeat the US around 1980.
Does the US have a similar plan of fascist Nazi Germany for a “superior” American future that is worth wars and lies to accomplish? Let’s explore.
America’s Master Plan?
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) contributed over 20 of the Bush Administration’s “leadership,” including Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and other key positions in Defense and State Departments.
In 1992, then Secretary of Defense Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz produced a paper for the future strategic goals of the US following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The paper was leaked; among the goals was for the US to expand as the world's Superpower through our military to "establish and protect a new order." The report endorsed “pre-emptive” attacks and ad hoc coalitions for military objectives, but as an unrivaled Superpower should act independent of international agreement if "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The strategy included military plans for intervention in Iraq for US "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil."
In 1998, PNAC lobbied President Clinton for war with Iraq, independent of UN Security Council legal authority. In 2000, PNAC issued its report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century" (summary here). The report stated the goal of a “Pax Americana,” an American “peace” that would achieve US interests by the method of "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major-theater wars." The US would usurp UN authority: "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations." The US would ensure its dominance through expansion of global military bases, now at over 700.
The report ominously included on page 63: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor." This would conveniently happen on 9/11; kicking in plans for invasion and hegemony in Afghanistan, Iraq, rhetoric for war with Iran, and now attacks in Pakistan.
How close is the US to fascism?
We’re there; the US is fascist. As a teacher of US government, I spend a lot of time with these basic definitions. Let’s look.
The US was formed as a constitutional republic; a political philosophy of limited government, separated powers with checks and balances to ensure the federal government’s power stays limited within the Constitution, protected civil liberties, and elected representatives responsible to the people who retain the most political power.
The US ideals that we embrace is equality under just laws, freedom of opportunity expressed through inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence, and creative independence to cooperatively compete for our best ideas to be rewarded.
Is this what we have today? Hardly. Let’s consider the salient evidence.
The US brazenly violates our laws of war, both demanded by the Constitution and the UN Charter, with open invasion of Afghanistan in abject violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and their government’s agreement to help extradite Osama bin Laden upon US presentment of evidence that he was involved in any crime of UN and/or international law. The US refused both the Afghan standard legal requirement of extradition and the UN resolution for cooperation under law and attacked. The new administration of Obama does not acknowledge this illegal history, but expands the invasion and attacks Pakistan. This policy is fascist, not limited by US law.
The US openly lied about reasons to justify an attack upon Iraq, destroying any semblance of argument of “self-defense.” The Obama administration won’t acknowledge the disclosed history from our own House and Senate investigations, and violates his oath of office to prosecute clear crimes. This policy is authoritarian, fascist, and does not hold equality under just laws. It is an un-American policy by definition.
The US tortured, with Obama refusing to prosecute and giving empty rhetoric to end it. The destruction of civil liberties to enforce authoritarian government is fascist, not American.
The US lies for more war with Iran, rejecting inalienable and legal rights for Iranians. Obama continues this policy of unlawful aggression, including official policy for first-strike nuclear weapons upon conclusion that Iran poses a possible future threat to the US and/or our allies. Political leaders and corporate media ignore the ignoble history of US vicious domination of Iranian government through coup and backed invasion. Fascist policy; un-American.
The US violates numerous treaty law with WMD, and hypocritically asserts our war targets' alleged violations justify US armed attack. This rejection of limited government under the law is a fascist empire on the loose, not a law-abiding neighbor. Added hypocrisy is the psychopathic front of American political leaders as Christians.
American corporatocracy is dominated by Enron-like cartels, headed by banks receiving the transfer of TRILLIONS of our tax dollars to pay-off their gambling debts in exotic derivative markets the federal government regulates only in more empty rhetoric. This socialization of corporate-insiders’ losses is fascist, and fundamentally in opposition of the American ideal of cooperative competition on a level playing field. Obvious financial solutions for the public good are ignored in their corporate and not public policy commitment.
While our government's official line is respect for Islam, their wars betray this analysis. If extremists were the small minority, why not peacefully cooperate to marginalize and arrest those in violation of just laws? Muslims as a group are often demonized in US media, and often the entire group is branded as terrorists. For example, consider the segment from the radio talk show of Michael Savage below.
The corporate media will not present such disturbing facts and analysis. Their outright lies of commission and omission are prima facie evidence of a controlled media, supported by revealed documentation from whistle-blowers. American freedom of the press is left to independent websites and those few media outlets who tolerate reporting such as you read now.
I was not rehired as a government teacher for presenting these documented facts in consideration of the most basic definitions among the first lessons in studying government. I am a Harvard-educated and National Board Certified teacher with a history including two Los Angeles mayors honoring me as one of the city’s top few teachers. I present facts far more boldly to a targeted adult journal audience than to high school-aged children preparing to enter adult civic participation. I put the disturbing information of US disclosed facts of war (mostly from House and Senate Committee reports) in writing and submitted it to peer-review to my social studies department colleagues and principal before distribution to students. No factual errors or bias was reported; the department chair and I met for an hour’s conversation of how to bridge expected denial of facts from cognitive dissonance. We concluded our first step to send a co-signed e-mail in affirmation of allowing professional factual discovery and discourse to lead our teaching. Despite having no error in fact or pedagogy reported to me, I was not rehired by the school board (we had moved back to California and as a second-year teacher in that district they could do so without explanation). I was denied any opportunity of discussion regarding the reason for my non-rehire. Although not a federal government example, I think it suggests a de facto control.
This is a good transition to consider cognitive blindness.
The 20th Century German public were well-educated, leaders in cultural achievement, and on the forefront of science. They were duped by emotionally-laden and polished propaganda to support brutal military aggression and mass murder.
We know from the Milgram Experiment and Stanford Prison Experiment that human beings are susceptible to vicious behavior under the veneer of authorized actions.
And we know from the following 4-minute video documenting a form of cognitive blindness, that unexpected fundamental change can go unrecognized when authority pretends nothing changed and nobody is there to point it out.
Policy response: Gandhi and Martin Luther King advocated public understanding of the facts and non-cooperation with evil. I’m among hundreds who advocate:
Understand the laws of war. These were legislated after WW2 and are crystal-clear that only self-defense, in a narrow legal meaning, can justify war. This investment of your time takes less than an hour and empowers you to legally stand for ending these Wars of Aggression.
Refuse and end all orders and acts associated with these unlawful wars. Those involved with US military, government, and law enforcement have an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution. Unlawful acts only move forward with sufficient cooperation and public tolerance. Stop cooperating with the most vicious crime a nation can commit: war. Stop tolerating it.
Prosecute the war leaders for obvious violation of the letter and spirit of US war laws. You can only understand how these wars are specifically unlawful by investing the time to do so. Because the crimes are so broad and deep, I recommend Truth and Reconciliation (T&R) to exchange full truth and return of stolen US assets for non-prosecution. This is the most expeditious way to understand and end all unlawful and harmful acts. Those who reject T&R either by volunteering their name and/or responding when named are subject to prosecution after the window of T&R closes.
Please share this article with all who can benefit and use the archive of my work to help build a brighter future. - Carl Herman
It should be noted to most people in any society the type of government matters not. Most people get up and work to feed their family and if they have extra money spend it on luxury items or travel if they have the ability or a passport. Most people don't travel and don't have luxury and don't need "freedoms" or protection of their rights in ANY form of government. Most people simply function on a level which runs society and is not concerned with larger issues.
Virtually all workers are exploited and wealth extracted from their labor. Virtually all workers are kept ignorant and in survival mode, unorganized and powerless to change anything. Most people have no idea of anything better or different and how they can know it.
Americans believe that they vote and get the government they want and deserve. But increasingly Americans have come to realize that voting, elections and government does not represent them but "special interests" which are those with wealth and power who want more - and trans national corporations which use the government simply to extract wealth from the working classes.
And most Americans have been too busy with pop culture and other personal distraction to learn about or understand that they are exploited and being poisoned, robbed and turned into wage slaves for their entire lives. And most American bought into the myth of endless growth and better living through "innovation" made possible by wall street.
Both the collapse and the clamp down are coming . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
