Lew Rockwell ran a detailed article on these incongruities. It originally appeared on the Collective Evolution site.
The article makes a claim that half of Americans don't believe the official story. This is certainly good news. It indicates that people are not so easily suckered. But something in the same percentage range applies also to Kennedy's assassination. Within a year of the assassination, Mark Lane wrote his book debunking the Warren Commission report, and there have been hundreds of books since then that have been equally skeptical. This is not something new.
In contrast, the percentage of Americans who believe Franklin Roosevelt's version of Pearl Harbor, which he delivered to Congress in his speech on December 8, 1941, remains high. Revisionist historians began going to work on the official story as early as 1946. But, even today, American history textbooks give no indication that the official story has always had gigantic holes in it. These holes have not been successfully patched. They have simply been ignored. Universities don't teach anything except the official party line. In this respect, there has been an extraordinarily effective barrier to the truth regarding Pearl Harbor from the day after it took place.
The article on 9/11 contains lots of valuable information on the famous event. There are lots of such summaries online. There are lots of skeptical videos. A cursory examination of half a dozen of these exposés leads the typical person to conclude that there is no way that the official story that the government has pushed could possibly be true. The problem is this: there is nothing like a coherent alternative to the official narrative. We are back to the age-old problem: you can't beat something with nothing.
THE VIETNAM WAR
There has been a fundamental change in public opinion ever since the Vietnam War. When young people began to turn against Lyndon Johnson when they began to get drafted to fight in that war, there was a loss of confidence in the federal government. The victims of conscription began to figure out that the official justifications of the war were illegitimate. This made them question the narrative regarding the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin and the supposed attack on American ships by the North Vietnamese. We know now that the story really was fake news.
This event and the war that followed, coupled with a visible defeat of the United States military, took place in the same period in which doubts were being raised about Kennedy's assassination. The combination of antiwar activism and skepticism regarding the war led to the first major reconsideration by millions of Americans regarding the official stories of the federal government. That was a turning point in American history.
At the same time, 1965-70, universities were being disrupted by antiwar activists. The Old Left initially favored the war in Vietnam. This meant the faculty of most American universities. Only after three years of fruitless battles and escalating deaths of American troops did the Old Left begin to waver. This was the era of the various new left movements.
The New Left began to affect historiography on campus. Younger historians began to challenge the paradigm of Progressivism. It was New Left historians, most notably Gabriel Kolko, who finally made the connection between the rise of federal regulatory agencies and the protection against competition that these agencies provided to established big business. This was a complete break with the old Progressive bipartisan party line. Murray Rothbard immediately recognized the importance of Kolko's 1963 book, The Triumph of Conservatism. By the time I went back to graduate school in 1965, I was a convert to Kolko's viewpoint. It was consistent with my understanding of the free market. The government was not acting to defend the American consumer. It was acting to defend the oligopolies that put up the money to get politicians elected.
This is why there is a market for criticism of official government explanations of just about everything. This is healthy. But, in the absence of budget-cutting, this skepticism is economically and politically irrelevant. As long as voters continue to elect politicians who grant gigantic quantities of money to federal agencies, there is not going to be any change. Bureaucracies only recognize budget cuts as significant threats to their power. There aren't any budget cuts. It doesn't matter how skeptical Americans are about official explanations of a specific event, this does not lead to a significant challenge to the religion of the warfare/welfare state.
SKEPTICISM IS NOT ENOUGH
There are lots of critics of the official explanation of 9/11, but there is no widely accepted alternative explanation of how the events took place. Government concealment is part of this. But another part is the absence any agreed-upon concept of historical causation.
This is why I don't take seriously the conclusions of the author who wrote the article critical of official explanations. He is an evolutionist. He is also not a trained historian. He tries to draw conclusions about historical causation based on theories of biological evolution. This is understandable, since Darwin got the basic theory of biological evolution by way of 18th-century Scottish rationalism, which argued in favor of social evolutionism. F. A. Hayek made this point half a century ago.
Here is what the author writes.
After 9/11, there were so many holes in the story that people began to investigate other sources of information. Not many people know that our sources of information lie in the hands of a very few, with special interests, through a handful of corporations and the people who run them.Websites like Collective-Evolution started to pop up, and a few years after 9/11, started gaining more traction. Our website alone has amassed over 1 billion views since its inception. Over the past decade, so much has been exposed in the form of credible sources, from documents released via the Freedom of Information Act to high ranking whistleblowers and much more.
People started to realize that the world we live in is not the world that we’ve been presented with, and that the disclosure of information actually threatens the global elite’s plans for us, whatever those plans may be. They started to realize that “news” was not really news, that they were just selected stories, and that a whole lot more is actually going on behind the scenes, with regards to major global events, than we’re made aware of.
It also birthed movements like Wikileaks.
As a result of this mass attention, this mass awakening of information, other news outlets that were not part of mainstream media were criticized, and labelled as “fake news.”
Entities like Snopes, in conjunction with Disney (a mainstream media hub), have now begun to censor information, and U.S. national security advocates are using “fake news” as justification.
This is just how much “alternative” media has impacted the globe, and now there is a war to stop it. But truth never stops; it continues to creep out here and there, transforming the minds and perception of the masses, and thus, creating the possibility for the transformation of our world.
It Shifted Collective Consciousness
This is a big point. 9/11 is perhaps one of the, if not the biggest, event that is shifting the collective consciousness, which includes our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of the world.
Even at the cellular level, organisms can change in many ways, often as a result of changes in their environment. 9/11 is one such change that is shifting the way we perceive our environment. It was a “the Earth is not flat” moment for many, as it woke millions, if not billions, of people up to the deception and corruption that plague our world.
After the event occurred, anyone who questioned the official story was made to feel stupid or crazy. Today, it’s a far different story, and that just goes to show how much information leaked out, and how much transparency there was, despite massive coverup efforts that are still ongoing today.
When our worldview shifts, the entire human experience begins to shift, and by critically thinking and asking questions, and by taking initiative in doing so, we take the first steps toward change. So much happens in plain sight, right in front of our eyes, yet we continually remain blind to it. When we start to see, these events become even more difficult for the elite to manifest.
This is just one way 9/11 has helped to shift consciousness. How are we supposed grow, evolve, and become better as a human race when there is so much secrecy in our world? Information opens the door to discovery, which opens the door for paradigm changing revelations, which in turn opens the door for a new human experience. If we are constantly kept blind to what really happens on our planet, and what really happened with regards to events like 9/11, we cannot shift past all of these experiences of war, hate, and greed, in our own lives or on a collective scale.
Ultimately, a shift in consciousness needs to occur in the hearts of those who push these events forward and manufacture them, because change starts with the individual, and awareness is key for that.
We need to stop allowing these events to trigger us, and we need to step back, and step out of ourselves and see it all from a much larger, cosmic perspective — to simply view it as an experience for the human race, and an opportunity to better ourselves. Let us not dwell on the “fateful events that happened that day” when these so-called “terrorists” did what they did. Let us instead see through the lies that perpetuate war, separation, and fear, and take back our power. Let’s start thinking, questioning, and examining instead of continually having our thoughts about “what is” dictated to us by a small group of people.
I don't like the phase "collective consciousness." I much prefer "worldview."
I ask: Who, exactly, are "we" and "us"? How are we going to accomplish all this? How do we get to the bottom of these stories? What other techniques, meaning techniques of historical interpretation, will enable us to get to the truth? How do "we" regain our power? What do we do with it? Who will represent us?
This has been the claim of political conservatives all of my life. Conspiracy theorists tell us again and again that if we can just get the truth to the American people, everything will get better. If "people" -- The People -- knew the truth, we are assured, they would no longer accept the government's lies. They would no longer accept a government that perpetuates the lies. This is a mythology that was basic to Greek rationalism, namely, that to know the good will result in the good. For this faith, there is very little evidence historically.
If people cannot agree on the criteria of truth, which is certainly the case regarding alternative theories of 9/11, then how is there going to be a fundamental change in the present hierarchy of power? We can't beat something with nothing. We can't beat the official party line with a dozen unofficial theories that are debated within the camp of the skeptics. The skeptics really are skeptical. They are skeptical of all rival explanations. So, the official party line remains dominant in the textbooks and the mainstream media.
The solution to this dilemma is to cut the funding to the federal government. If there is no big payoff available to those who want to use federal power to feather their own nests, then we will be less subjected to government manipulation. There won't be a big payoff from the official party line.
Historians are afraid to look carefully at 9/11. They don't want to lose their jobs if they are not tenured. They don't want to be ridiculed by their peers. They are frightened people. They are bureaucrats. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.
So, who is going to clear a pathway through the lies? It is not going to come from the campus. The campus is conventional. The New Leftists are now old New Leftists. They have their own party line to defend. They have been in bed with the federal government throughout their whole careers. The modern university has been dependent on federal grant money for half a century. If it ever stops, half the faculty will be fired. Faculty members understand this.
CONCLUSIONS
We are not going to be delivered by means of exposés. It doesn't matter who provides the exposés. We have to be delivered from economic reliance on the federal government. The federal government's promised safety net has become the equivalent of a straitjacket.
People don't want to abandon the source of their hoped-for security. They don't want to lose faith that they have been deceived by national politicians ever since at least 1787, and really ever since 1775. The American Revolution did more to increase federal debt and federal taxation than anything that had taken place prior to 1775. The British Parliament provided a tax haven in North America in the early 1770's. American history textbooks don't discuss this.
Voters don't want to think of themselves as fools. The author of the article makes it sound as though the rise of lying by the federal government began recently. He is naïve. He arrived late to the party. The party is political. It is bipartisan. It is entrenched. Only the bankruptcy of the federal government is going to dislodge this party.
For as long as the federal government retains the support of the voters, it will retain legitimacy. For as long as it retains legitimacy, skeptics may grouse about this or that official explanation of crucial events, but nothing is going to change.
© 2022 GaryNorth.com, Inc., 2005-2021 All Rights Reserved. Reproduction without permission prohibited.