Pre Internet, it was starting to get very easy to think that you were on your own. The newspapers and television decided what was, or wasn't, fair game for questioning and ridicule. And, as the ownership and control of the newspaper and media fell under the influence of a smaller and smaller number of interests, the scope for questioning and ridicule became correspondingly smaller and smaller
Sooner or later, probably sooner, the Internet is going to have be dealt with but for a while anyway something approximating to free speech reins. The fascinating thing is just how sensitive and paranoid the mainstream press is about not so lone voices calling out to each other.
The numbers of people involved are relatively small, certainly peanuts in comparison with a mainstream TV news broadcast but what interesting and potentially troublesome people they sometimes are
One of the most obvious and pressing examples of limits being imposed on what is ridiculed and questioned is the establishment narrative on the war on terror. Virtually no-one, even on the net, is daring to call out...
Anyone who has been following the recent UK terror show trials and taken even just a little time out to look at the source material, rather than rely on the headlines and the deceptive copy underneath those headlines, runs the very real risk of concluding that there is something seriously wrong with the picture which is being painted
Taking a BBC report of the current 7/7 Conspiracy trial for example...
"In a separate conversation with police, Mohammed Shakil said that he had been friends with Mohammed Siddique Khan through his twenties when the pair had drunk alcohol and smoked cannabis together. Mr Shakil told Detective Constable David McIntyre that he "could not think in his wildest dreams" why his friend had gone on to become a suicide bomber. Khan had expressed resentment about the situation in Pakistan and Iraq, but not in an extreme manner, said Mr Shakil. The Leeds man said that Khan had not been a particularly devout Muslim. In contrast, he considered himself a practising Muslim who denounced suicide bombings..."
"Neil Flewitt QC, prosecuting, told the jury that Waheed Ali and Mohammed Shakil were making plans to travel to Pakistan, including buying equipment from camping or outdoor shops. Items included a Swiss Army knife, water purification tablets and secure body wallets, described by the observing police officer as a covert body pouch.
When police officers stopped Mr Ali near a shop in the departures terminal, he replied: "I was only going to get some chocolate."
The case continues"
The press is constantly full of stuff like this, to the exclusion of anything that corresponds to objectivity or a sense of proportion or common sense. Our mainstream media is Institutionally Dissonant and apparently has no problem whatsoever in reporting tales of...
- Dead suicide fanatics who don't appear to have been fanatics, or suicidal
- Dead Al Qaeda supporting suicide fanatics who appear to have believed that Al Qaeda is sponsored by the CIA
- Endless talk of well-funded sophisticated international terror networks who seem to only employ incompetent losers in bedsits and MI5/MI6 connected gasbags
- Endless talk of well-funded sophisticated international terror networks being close to securing atom bombs and killer robots but which are making do with Lucozade and Chapatti flour in the meantime
and so on and so on
And it's all reported/ repeated with a straight face, without the slightest suggestion of a reality check and usually with the word 'chilling' stuck at the front for good measure
It's not chilling. It's bollocks
What is scary is that, unlike some of the really hardcore conspira-lunatics out there, I'm not convinced that the majority of journalists, policemen, terror consultants and politicians pushing this hyped-up bullshit are consciously part of a huge establishment conspiracy
For a starters, it really would be impossible to keep such a huge network secret
For seconds, if there was a huge establishment network consciously manufacturing the war on terror myth it would be doing a much better job of it and wouldn't have to make do with so much bollocks
We'd see some really damning video footage, real bombs and guns would be displayed in court as evidence, there would be records of really incriminating financial transactions, discovery of real domestic terror camps; masses of material which would silence the handful of sceptics once and for all
but there ain't
In the same way that some real WMDs weren't planted in Iraq after the invasion, there are limits to what kinds of evidence can or can't be, um, 'introduced' into the public domain. The limits are present due to the fact that, surprising as it may sound, the vast majority of people, even those who work in the security services or media are probably, more or less, honest - very probably duped but not willfully wicked.
It's one thing to have someone disappear a few embarrassing CCTV tapes, it's an altogether riskier exercise to start whisking up some fake tapes of your own
Whilst personally I have little doubt that conscious conspiracy does lie at the heart of the war on terror paradigm I don't believe for a second that the majority of people playing along with that paradigm know that it is a lie.
I remember chatting with one of the most analytically capable, well with numbers anyway, guys I've ever met shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He was repeating a story he'd read about some of the alleged 9/11 hijackers drinking in the 'Pink Pony' lap dance bar shortly before 9/11 and even going so far as to leave a copy of the Koran in the bar behind them.
The guy telling me this story bought the official 9/11 narrative. I didn't. I asked him if he thought that fanatical Muslims who were about to commit suicide for Islam really would spend one of their last few nights on Earth getting drunk in a titty bar and disrespecting their sacred book.
His answer, delivered in a very smug, patronising manner, was 'Ah, but what you don't understand is that these men are trained to blend in with Western society'
It was then, very early on in the post 9/11 world, that I realised that people, even people who could pass off as being very clever people, are capable of believing any old shit provided you've softened their brains up adequately beforehand
To have any realistic chance of duping large numbers of people into buying into a myth that myth is going to made up of no more than 5% conspiracy and 95%+ pathology.
And if you are really clever, and control enough of the media, that myth will take on a life of its own