Thursday, April 20, 2006

They Wouldn't Do That

The following essay deals with dark subjects. However, it is only by exposing and working through the darkness that we can break through into the light.

Psychologists tell us that many people's view of the government is a projection of their view of their parents. In other words, whatever they believe about their parents, they also believe about the government. The personal is the political in more ways than one.

Try to step into the shoes of the average American. He or she assumes that the government wants to protect its citizens, just as his or her parents tried to protect their family (or at least he or she believed they did). So for this average American, believing that the government could do something cruel would be extremely difficult.

An Analogy

Let's call an average American "A". Let's say that A's brother is murdered. Police find the wallet of A's next door neighbor at the crime scene. The neighbor is arrested.

Months later, someone tells A that it was not the neighbor who killed A's brother, rather it was A's own parents.

Would A believe them? Probably not. A would have a very difficult time believing that her own parents -- who she thought were good, protective parents -- would do something so terrible.

This is basically the level of emotional resistance which the average American has to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Remember, many Americans project their family experience onto the government and the family as a whole. So thinking about the government murdering 3,000 of its own citizens is pretty much the same as contemplating that your parents would kill one of your siblings.

You may think that this analogy is far-fetched. A parent killing their kid is destroying perhaps 1/4 th of their family, while a government killing 3,000 citizens out of a population of over 200 million is a much smaller percentage. But this is a difference in degree, not in kind. And admittedly, murdering one's own flesh and blood is different from killing members of one's "national" family.

But despite these differences, the analogy is still useful for exploring emotional issues, as discussed below.

Exposing the Truth

But let's assume that, over the course of several years, people inform A about how numerous other parents in town have killed a child for horrible and criminal -- but logical -- reasons. Let's assume that the town has experienced a severe drought. And only some people have wells deep enough to draw water.

And some horrible person killed his own kid and planted the neighbors' wallet at the crime scene in order to get the neighbor arrested and buy the neighbor's house (and well) cheaply at a foreclosure sale. And then maybe this monstrous behavior catches on, and other townspeople start killing their own kids, planting fake evidence, and taking over for little cost their neighbor's property and drinking water wells.

This is very disturbing, horrific, disgusting stuff to think about. And this is how many Americans will react when being told that 9/11 was an inside job.

After years of exposure to the truth about this mass wave of murders in her town for monstrous but logical reasons, A may finally accept that her parents might have done it (assuming there is convincing evidence linking them to the crime).

Likewise, we have to approach people who are resistant to hearing 9/11 truth by respecting the emotional difficulty they probably will have to the false flag scenario.

How Do We Reach Them?

Like the neighbors who have to educate A about the rash of murders, we have to educate people about the common government ploy of false flag terrorism, as well as the evidence linking our government to 9/11. We have to educate people to the horrible fact that governments commonly commit acts of terror against their own people and blame it on others to justify wars against neighboring countries, to steal their resources, or to consolidate power. Are these things any less monstrous -- or more rational -- than parents killing their children? For the average American, it is hard to see the difference. Indeed, it is hard to think about either.

It will take alot of people doing alot of teaching. And just as importantly, it will take real sensitivity to the difficulties the A's of this country have in believing that their government -- the projection of their fathers and mothers -- could do so horrible an act.

How can we approach A in a way which recognizes where she is at emotionally and her natural emotional resistance to horribly disturbing news? How can we educate her? How can we reach her?

It won't be easy. But the future of our country, our liberties and our safety may be at stake.

We have to find a way to reach A. That is our assignment.

It would be nice, of course, if we could educate people that people in government do NOT necessarily behave like their parents do. But that is not necessarily an easy fix, as it may take people some time to see their projections clearly.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bravo! An excellant analogy. Finally I find someone out in bloggerville who shares my views.

6:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way. I'll share my blog when I can figure out where to acquire some more secure web space. I occasionally upload audio files that a savvy web surfer could trace back to me.

When discussing these kinds of subjects, anonymity is preferred.

Have you seen the interview Alex Jones did with Charlie Sheen?

7:08 PM  
Blogger metamars said...

>> Putting the NY Times Out of Business <<
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media

I have posted a proposal on the Randi Rhodes show forum for replacing our current media with a new, sustainable media that facilitates the selection of "filtering agents". You can think of these as honest gatekeepers that YOU trust - and that keep out trivial information, rather than very important information that groups with economic and other hidden agendas prefer to hide from you.

The thread is entitled: "Putting the NY Times Out of Business"
The thread is subtitled: "Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"



5:51 AM  
Blogger metamars said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:52 AM  
Anonymous Buster said...

Nice job as usual.

Thank you very much.

11:37 AM  
Blogger SourDove said...

He or she assumes that the government wants to protect its citizens

"the Pittsburgh cancer death rate had climbed by 31 percent between 1958 and 1968...
But if Shippingport was responsible for these striking cancer rises in the towns using the Ohio River for their water supply, then the discharges into the river would have had to be vastly greater than the amounts for which the plant had been licensed." link

12:06 AM  
Blogger EmptyGround said...

Yes, I agree this is a line of approach that can work with some. So the question I pose is: how do we frame the discussion and for whom?

it seems that it takes different tactics to encourage people of varying political stripes to be more receptive to moving past 9/11 cognitive dissonance issues.

for the progressive, it may help to recount the plethora of lies and disinformation put out by BushCo and ask: why, in light of all the administration's lies, do you believe the official 9/11 story? certainly some will say "they wouldn't do that".

framing the discussion in terms of justice or morals may create pathways for the conservative.

what other frames?

12:25 PM  
Anonymous Tina Louise said...

Excellent analogy and (as always from your keyboard) rational and wisely put, thank you. I often think of my own government (UK) in the terms of a bad husband. Each week I give him my money in the expectation that he will live up to his promises (made before we entered into this relationship) to sort the children's education, our health care, our parents' dignity and the general maintenance of our 'home'....but instead, he goes out, buys a gun, shoots the neighbours and hangs out with his pals looking tough - everyone loses in this marriage.

Tina Louise

5:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellant analogy!! I wonder if anyone here has read the paper Silent weapons for Quiet Wars? It is in a book called behold a pale horse. I believe that this book might be something out there to serve as disinformation, however I believe the paper points out some things in greater detail then in the post.

One of the problems A has is not only the parent view of goverment, but A also has a serious lack of desire to hear anything that might be difficult to hear or see. A is too distracted with the pursuit of entertainment. In order to reach A, we have to find a way to cut throught the noise and covince A to listen to something besides top forty hits and watching flavor of love on tv.

8:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home