by Kevin Barrett, TruthJihad.com
It is now vastly easier to kill a million people than to control them. That, at least, is the view of Dr. Zbigniew Brezezinski, the leading political science practitioner of our time.
Most people are basically sheep who look to their leaders, and the rest of the flock, for guidance. So why is it so hard to control them?
The problem is what political scientists call “the rise of counter-elites.” Not all people are 100% subservient; some harbor aspirations for leadership. When status-quo leaders take the flock in a direction that serves their own interest, not the flock’s –
…say, by sending the flock off a cliff so the leaders will have the meadow to themselves – the stronger and smarter members of the flock will start bleating, “Hey sheeple! They’re running you off a cliff! Follow us instead!”
How do status-quo leaders respond to this age-old problem?
One of their most effective techniques is to create, lead, or manipulate the opposition.
In Orwell’s 1984, for example, we learn that opposition leader Emmanuel Goldstein, or at least his book, is the creation of the Party elite.
It is my contention that the element of Western leadership behind the 9/11 false-flag attacks has also been trying to control its opposition, with mixed success.
Both al-Qaeda and the 9/11 truth movement – perhaps the two groups that most radically oppose the neocon-Zionist element of Western leadership that staged 9/11 and subsequent false-flag attacks – have been manipulated.
Elite manipulation of al-Qaeda has been more thoroughgoing and successful than efforts to manipulate and control the 9/11 truth movement. The reason is obvious:
al-Qaeda operates in a much more opaque information environment than the truth movement does. When a statement or action is attributed to al-Qaeda, it is almost impossible to verify who is really behind it. (Real al-Qaeda fighters and propagandists cannot operate openly and transparently, for if they do, they will quickly be killed or kidnapped and tortured.)
The result is that “al-Qaeda” has become a reality TV show largely controlled by those in charge of the mainstream media and their “official sources” – such as Mossad’s “terror experts” at the SITE Intelligence Group, which is basically a low-budget Hollywood studio selling fictitious terror scripts.
Al Qaeda, the Situation Comedy:
9/11 Conspiracy Theories ‘Ridiculous,’ Al Qaeda Says: http://www.theonion.com/video/911-conspiracy-theories-ridiculous-al-qaeda-says,14222/
Bad parody of The Onion, courtesy of the mainstream media: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-iran-ahmadinejad-stop-spreading-911-conspiracy/story?id=14620643
For those unconvinced that al-Qaeda is a neocon-Zionist-sponsored reality TV show, consider two examples: The “Fatty Bin Laden smoking-gun confession video” that supposedly implicates Bin Laden in 9/11; and the alleged killing of Bin Laden last spring.
According to Duke University professor Bruce Lawrence, one of America’s top Bin Laden experts, the Fatty Bin Laden alleged confession video is “bogus.” Not only that, he says, but the US cops, officers and spies tasked with hunting down Bin Laden know the “confession video” is bogus.
Then why is Bin Laden is being falsely blamed for 9/11? Because, Dr. Lawrence opines, that false story is convenient for certain elements of the US and world elites; asking the question “if not Bin Laden, who?” opens Pandora’s box.
(Listen to Bruce Lawrence: http://www.radiodujour.com/people/lawrence_bruce/ )
So where did the fabricated “confession video” come from? The official story is that some unnamed US soldier stumbled upon it in a house in Jalalabad. Why haven’t we seen this soldier on TV, or even heard his name? Why does the US government and media pretend the video is genuine, even though every informed person on earth, including everyone involved with studying or tracking Bin Laden, knows it is bogus?
To ask the question is to answer it: The “smoking gun confession video” is a fabrication created by the real perpetrators of 9/11 to cast blame on their chosen patsy. It is part of the Al Qaeda reality TV show.
There have been many moments of darkly hilarious absurdity on the Al Qaeda reality TV show.
One came in 2004, when a suddenly non-religious “Bin Laden” did a pseudo-endorsement of John Kerry for the benefit of Bush, right before the election – and Walter Cronkite blurted out that it was probably produced by Karl Rove!
A even more ludicrous episode aired in 2008, when a skinny little guy with a jet-black beard who didn’t look remotely like the real Bin Laden, much less Fatty Bin Laden or the many other versions, appeared on television spouting al-Qaeda platitudes.
But the height of absurdity was reached last spring, when Part One of “Al-Qaeda: The Reality Show” closed with the supposed killing of Bin Laden. If OBL were a terrorist mastermind, would they really hunt him down and kill him, rather than capturing him to extract information?
Would they immediately dump his body in the sea, before it could be identified by independent experts? Would they grotesquely blame “Islamic custom” for the sea burial?
Would they put out conflicting stories about whether the killing was watched live in the Oval Office, whether Bin Laden used his wife as a human shield, whether he fought back, whether he was armed, and so on?
And would the Navy Seal team credited with the operation suddenly find itself being shot down in a helicopter over Afghanistan? Anyone who accepts the official version of this event obviously has lost the ability to tell bad TV fiction from reality.
How did an eloquent spokesperson for the Islamic world, Osama Bin Laden, turn into a cartoon character on a neocon-Zionist-scripted reality TV show?
The grievances the real Bin Laden aired so beautifully are very real.
And so are the strategic goals he espoused – return to indigenous Islamic legal systems, development of a pan-Islamic military deterrent to future genocidal attacks on Muslims, overthrow of Western-puppet Arab leaders AND the artificial nation-states they lead.
You can include merging the Muslim-majority nations into a re-united Caliphate or Umma that could defend itself and control its own resources – are the goals of the vast majority of Muslims everywhere.
And that, for the Zionist-neocon element of Western leadership, was the problem. The ideas espoused by Bin Laden are those of the whole Islamic world.
The “Islamic wave” threatened to keep rising until it achieved its goals – at which point both Israel and Western control of Muslim oil would be consigned to the proverbial garbage bin of history.
Because al-Qaeda was forced to operate in an opaque information environment, it was easily infiltrated and manipulated. The neocon-Zionist elite’s goal was to negatively brand al-Qaeda, and to use that negativity to smear the pan-Islamic projects it (and the majority of Muslims) supports.
And the easiest way to smear al-Qaeda was to make it appear responsible for reprehensible attacks on civilians. Muslims, even more than non-Muslims, oppose attacking non-combatants.
So by staging “al-Qaeda” attacks on innocent people, the enemies of al-Qaeda could ruin the group’s image among Muslims – and win support in the non-Muslim West for a war on Islam, a war whose real aim was to stop the Islamic wave from cresting and washing away the Zionism and imperialism-colonialism that continues to hobble the Muslim world.
The establishment of a controlled-opposition version of al-Qaeda as the bad guys in a neocon-Zionist reality TV show was largely successful.
But the biggest mass slaughter attributed to al-Qaeda – the demolition of the World Trade Center – experienced some t-t-t-technical d-d-d-difficulties when World Trade Center Building 7 refused to come down on cue, and had to be demolished in broad daylight in front of cameras almost seven-and-a-half hours behind schedule.
This was the equivalent of allowing the audience watching the horror movie to see the string attached to the monster’s jaws.
The botched false-flag op on 9/11/2001 created a new kind of radical opposition: The 9/11 truth movement. This group would prove harder to manipulate than al-Qaeda. The 9/11 truth movement operates openly.
Every real member of the movement uses his or her real name and acts in the glare of total transparency.
Those who hide behind pseudonyms, or equivocate about their real identities or views, are gradually washed out of the movement as dross, due to the free competition in the information market offered by the transparent arena of digital communications combined with face-to-face meetings at talks and conferences.
The result is that authentic truther sites like VeteransToday.com, whatreallyhappened.com, AE911truth.org, pilotsfor911truth.org, LegitGov.org, AmericanFreedomRadio.com, Rense.com, and PrisonPlanet.com have built or are building sizable audiences, while infiltrated sites like 911blogger.com and disinfo sites like TruthAction.org and OilEmpire.us start flashy but then steadily lose traffic.
The latter three sites generally protect the neocon-Zionist orchestrators of 9/11; and the latter two are best viewed as completely-controlled disinfo sites, or “wreckers” as Webster Tarpley has called them.
And while it was fairly easy to sell the idea that al-Qaeda is a threat, and find people to work against it, the same is less true of the 9/11 truth movement.
Most people in the police and armed services are genuine American patriots, and while they may be motivated to exert themselves against “foreign terrorists,” they are much less willing to fight nonviolent activists working to expose an act of high treason, and thereby save the nation and its Constitution.
As Cass Sunstein noted in his mendacious diatribe against 9/11 truth – one of the most pathetic excuses for a scholarly paper ever published – there is a danger that those assigned to undermining “conspiracy theorists” will become conspiracy theorists themselves.
This danger is proportional to the availability of evidence that the “conspiracy theorists” are right – and in the case of 9/11, that evidence is more than available, it is the elephant in the living room.
Since hardly anybody but committed Zionists wants to bash 9/11 truth, at least once they’ve looked into it, the result is that most of the concerted attacks on 9/11 truth have come from Zionist sources: Mossadniks like Jonathan Kay and his pal Michael Ross, Zionist neoliberals like Cass Sunstein, neocon extremists like Philip Zelikow and Benjamin Chertoff, and Israeli front groups like the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Today, the 9/11 truth movement is a much greater threat to the NWO finance empire and its neocon-zionist controllers than al-Qaeda ever was. Attempts to plant forces of controlled opposition have apparently met with mixed success.
Many truth movement members have fallen into the trap of endlessly bickering with each other on the internet, rather than launching initiatives to help educate the general public. Some of that bickering is coming from controlled opposition. Its goal is to slow the movement, distract it, and above all, discourage its members.
Other forces of controlled opposition push limited hangouts, whose bottom line is: Keep blaming the Muslims! People who try to prevent the truth movement from naming and shaming the neocon-Zionist perpetrators are working for a limited hangout that will allow the war on Islam to continue.
People who keep the door open for a LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) interpretation work for the same goal. People who distract us from clear evidence that there were no Arab hijackers and no plane hijackings (with the possible exception of remote-control “hijackings”) likewise are working to help sustain the 9/11-sparked war on Islam.
And people who try to blame Saudis and Pakistanis rather than the real perpetrators – Israelis and their American agents – are pushing “blame the victim” to its absurd extreme.
Despite the smokescreen of lies and half-truths emitted by the controlled opposition elements of the 9/11 truth movement, the trend is unstoppable: More and more people are waking up to more and more truth.
As Brzezinski says, we are in the era of “extreme populism” brought on by the digital communications revolution. (“Populist extremism,” of course, just means that the people are waking up to how badly they’ve been screwed, and are fighting mad.)
Will the elite give up trying to control us, and just kill us off by the millions – or even the billions? Or will the flock get smart enough to see through controlled opposition, shake off the whole leadership structure, and mutate from sheeple into actual human beings?
Your choices will help provide the answer. …. Kevin