From: Laura Knight-Jadczyk <lark2@cassiopaea.com>
To: @LIST
Subject: Re: More questions to Steven Jones
Date sent: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:35:43 +0200
On 25 Jul 2006, at 17:28, Nico Haupt wrote:
> Some 9/11 truthlings refer to these kind of questions on plagiarism as an ego
> attitude but that isn't even the real point and irresponsibility IMO.
Please tell us what are your credentials, what establishes your expert
status so that we may accept your opinion as "weighted"?
I read your "indictment" of Professor Jones and I'm sorry, it is little more
than an opinion piece. Ms. Grable refers to it as "facts," which suggests
that some people have different ideas about what facts really are.
Let me try to bring some clarity here. But, before I do, let me establish
my credentials - or lack thereof:
I am not an expert, I am a writer. However, in my writing, I do extensive,
in-depth research, consult experts, quote experts, and collate expert
opinions. There are a number of world class experts who consult me for my
opinion. I also worked with experts in psychology for 20 years as a
certified hypnotherapist and raised 5 children very successfully.
Now, that's out of the way, back to the issue at hand:
People on this list seem to be concerned with the term "Truth". But while
using it - do we fully understand each other? Do we have in mind the same
thing?
Since Truth is one of the most important concepts and one of the most
important factors that will lead us out of this mess, it may serve us well
to have a compass against which "colinearity" can be measured and non-
colinearity discerned.
"What is truth?" is a question that has been asked for millennia. As we
ordinarily use it, the adjective "true" means "an assertion that corresponds
to the facts". More precisely, the word "true" denotes the validity of an
intended (or expected) correspondence between a representation and what it
represents. There are many interesting essays that deal with this question
on the internet.
In this one, http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/cert04.htm
an example is given of a map being "true to geography" because "the lines
of the plan exhibit approximately the same two-dimensional shape as
streets". A painting is said to be "true to life" if it accurately shows to
any viewer how something really looks when you see it with your eyes. This
essay also suggests that "truth involves two 'systems', purportedly linked
by a 'mapping'."
So, maybe we can agree that when we are seeking truth, we are really trying
to establish "the validity of an intended (or expected) correspondence
between a representation and what it represents."
This is where we run into our biggest problem. In a cover-up situation,
there are often many false leads that are planted so as to act as a
correspondence between a lie and what that lie asserts. An example is the
passport of one of the alleged Muslim hijackers that miraculously survived
the destruction of the WTC, to be found in the rubble...
So, obviously, we cannot rely solely on the above definition of Truth.
This leads to the next problem: lack of adequate psychological knowledge.
And here I don't mean the knowledge that one must acquire to be a
psychologist, but more like basic understanding of how the majority of
people think and feel and how they can be manipulated.
Aldous Huxley once commented that the two most important factors for
achieving truth are a good, wide, intelligence and good will (charity).
There are many people in the world who are very smart but have no good will.
We can see examples in the Neocons. Some of them are very smart but evil.
There are also many people who have a lot of good will, but not a lot of
intelligence. Huxley pointed out that such people can be easily led astray
and led to do things and think things and say things that are quite damaging
to truth.
So, the problem with this lack of adequate psychological knowledge on the
part of the masses of humanity - and that extends right into the 911 Truth
movement - is a great barrier to arriving at the Truth.
Paraphrasing psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski:
During good times, people lose sight of the need for thinking, introspection, knowledge of others,
and an understanding of life. When things are "good," people ask themselves whether it is worth it
to ponder human nature and flaws in the personality (one's own, or that of another). In good times, entire generations can grow up with no understanding of the creative meaning of suffering since they have never experienced it themselves. When all the joys of life are there for the taking, mental effort to understand science and the laws of nature - to acquire knowledge that may not be directly related to accumulating stuff - seems like
pointless labor. Being "healthy minded," and positive - a good sport with never a discouraging word
- is seen as a good thing, and anyone who predicts dire consequences as the result of such insouciance is labeled a wet-blanket or a killjoy.
Perception of the truth about reality, especially a real understanding of
human nature in all it's ranges and permutations, ceases to be a virtue to
be acquired. Thoughtful doubters are "meddlers" who can't leave well enough
alone. "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." This attitude leads to an
impoverishment of psychological knowledge including the capacity to
differentiate the properties of human nature and personality, and the
ability to mold healthy minds creatively.
The cult of power thus supplants the mental and moral values so essential
for maintaining peace by peaceful means. A nation's enrichment or involution
as regards its psychological world-view could be considered an indicator of
whether its future be good or bad.
During good times, the search for the meaning of life, the truth of our
reality, becomes uncomfortable because it reveals inconvenient factors.
Unconscious elimination of data which are, or appear to be, inexpedient,
begins to be habitual, a custom accepted by entire societies. The result is
that any thought processes based on such truncated information cannot bring
correct conclusions. This then leads to substitution of convenient lies to
the self to replace uncomfortable truths thereby approaching the boundaries
of phenomena which should be viewed as psychopathological.
When bad times arrive and people are overwhelmed by an excess of evil, they
must gather all their physical and mental strength to fight for existence
and protect human reason. The search for some way out of difficulties and
dangers rekindles long-buried powers or discretion. Such people have the
initial tendency to rely on force in order to counteract the threat; they
may, for instance, become "trigger happy" or dependent upon armies. Slowly
and laboriously, however, they discover the advantages conferred by mental
effort; improved understanding of psychological situations in particular,
better differentiation of human characters and personalities, and finally,
comprehension of one's adversaries.
It is clear that America has experienced a long period of "good times" for
most of its existence, (no matter how many people they had to oppress or
kill to do so), but particularly so during the 50 years preceding September
11, 2001. During that 50 years, several generations of children were born,
and the ones that were born at the beginning of that time, who have never
known "bad times," are now at an age where they want to "enjoy" the benefits
they have accumulated. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like that is going to
happen; 9/11 has changed everything so profoundly that it looks like there
will be no enjoyment by anyone for a very, very long time.
How could this happen?
The answer is that a few generation's worth of "good times" results in the
above described societal deficits regarding psychological skills and moral
criticism. Long periods of preoccupation with the self and "accumulating
benefits" for the self, diminish the ability to accurately read the
environment and other people.
Lobaczewski writes: The psychological features of each such crisis are
unique to the culture and the time, but one common denominator that exists
at the beginning of all such "bad times" is an exacerbation of society's
hysterical condition. The emotionalism dominating in individual, collective,
and political life, combined with the subconscious selection and
substitution of data in reasoning, lead to individual and national egotism.
The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant
retaliation, taking advantage of hyperirritability and hypocriticality on
the part of others. It is this feature, this hystericization of society,
that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive
deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of
evil on a macro-social scale.
We are facing just such an exacerbation of society's hysterical condition
and this MUST be considered in any attempt to garner the support of the
wider community of humanity. Without their support, no amount of "911 Truth
Seeking" will amount to a hill of beans.
We can conjecture that if one psychologist knows the above, a few others
must know it as well. And maybe some of them work for the government that
has taken such advantage of 911? If we think about it, it becomes quite
logical that, if they know these things then they may very wll have been
complicit in 911 for the very purpose of "exacerbating society's hysterical
condition." As Lobaczewski notes, it is the hysterization of society that
enables pathological plotters to basically take over.
Who, exactly, are the "pathological plotters," and what can motivate such
individuals during times that are generally understood by others as "good"
to do things that will bring on "bad times." If times are "good," why does
anyone want to plot and generate evil? Especially since it is obvious to
anyone with two neurons firing that such activity will (and has
historically) led to the destruction of the plotters themselves?
Well, certainly, the current US administration has come up with an answer:
"They hate us because of our freedoms." This is a prime example of
"selection and substitution of data in reasoning" which is willingly and
gladly accepted as an explanation by the public because of their deficits of
psychological skills and moral criticism. The truth is somewhat different.
Unfortunately, after so long a time of being subjected to lies and
disinformation, the likelihood of society being able to overcome the social
and cultural programming is difficult, but not impossible. And that is where
things like COINTELPRO come into play: psyops agents are masters of
triggering emotional programs that put people back to sleep. As a student on
the subject, Robert Canup, has said, 99% of all of the problems confronting
mankind can be traced to a single cause: the problem of the plausible lie.
And the plausible lie is what COINTELPRO is all about.
Plausible lies are monstrous things propagated by evil people for the
express purpose of deceiving good people into doing the will of those who do
not have their best interests at heart. It's that simple. The most powerful
of these lies are so plausible that nobody even dreams about questioning
their validity.
Allow me to quote Richard Dolan - a qualified expert on cold-war diplomacy -
on this point:
The very label [Conspiracy Theory] serves as an automatic dismissal,
as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and
common sense to this issue.
The United States comprises large organizations - corporations,
bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by
nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made
in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about
their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior.
"Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.
Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency
is magnified to the greatest extreme. [...]
Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official
manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and
their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few
who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All
elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing
structures of power. It's an old game.
America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an
empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and
without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its
structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and
intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as
defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its
fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.
Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and
intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The
undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan
Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more
than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although
its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.
During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as
the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists,
terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable
transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and
universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place
far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of
Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful
intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the
public or Congress for many years.
Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had
more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official
dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was
engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated
large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime
(and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well
established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to
run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and
established American families, who have long maintained an interest in
funding national security operations important to their interests.
In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security
establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress
has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice
Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with
secrecy. [...]
A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when
President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The
situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office,
Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air
Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he
finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of
the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.
If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control
America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how
on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding
comparable matters?
Secrecy, weath and independence add up to power. Through the years, the
national security state has gained access to the world's most sophisticated
technology, sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or
scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability with US borders and beyond,
conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted
wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence
over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of
defense dollars.
Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that
matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an
impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a
nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war
crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during
the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution...
The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in
our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take
whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.
keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide
something like this for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of
the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State.
Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.
Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently
unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll
of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the
very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in
neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through
official denial, other times through proxies in the media.
[E]vidence [of the true nature of the nature of National Security State
and how it really operates] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to
survive its inevitable conflict with official culture, [created by
COINTELPRO].
And this is the problem we face: a MONSTROUS structure of Plausible Lies
implemented for over 50 years - covering an entire generation of U.S.
Citizens.
In short, people believe what is "familiar," or what is part of a careful,
long term program of familiarization of lies that become plausible simply
because they are familiar.
Now, what we are dealing with in terms of trying to expose the TRUTH of 911
is what could be called an "implausible truth."
When science first discoverd that solid matter was mostly empty space, many
people reacted to this truth - this unfamiliar fact of our reality - with
outrage. Debates over the "solidity" of matter and "kicking rocks" raged for
years. It took a very long time, and a lot of work to gradually make others
aware of this truth in order to make this "implausible" fact part of our
awareness.
It is just such a battle we face, and part of that battle MUST include
helping people to understand the nature of the kinds of people who could do
such a thing as 911.
I'm sure that all of you have encountered this problem: people just won't
listen because they say "Oh, nobody could do something like THAT! Nobody is
THAT evil!" and so on. They are brainwashed to think that their government
is, effectively, "Big Brother," and that this is a GOOD thing!!!!
Such is the power of the Plausible Lie.
Learning about evil in our society, how it operates on the macro-social
scale, is considered by many to be "unpleasant." They don't want to go
there. It is too disturbing and even frightening. More than that, talking
about these things - to talk about evil as though it were a REAL concept is
something we have been programmed to NOT do! As psychologist George Simon
says:
...[W]e've been pre-programmed to believe that people only exhibit
problem behaviors when they're "troubled" inside or anxious about something.
We've also been taught that people aggress only when they're attacked in
some way. So, even when our gut tells us that somebody is attacking us and
for no good reason, we don't readily accept the notion. We usually start to
wonder what's bothering the person so badly "underneath it all" that's
making them act in such a disturbing way. We may even wonder what we may
have said or done that "threatened" them. We almost never think that they
might be fighting simply to get something, have their way, or gain the upper
hand. So, instead of seeing them as merely fighting, we view them as
primarily hurting in some way. [...]
The legacy of Sigmund Freud's work has a lot to do with this. Freud's
theories (and the theories of others who built upon his work) heavily
influenced the psychology of personality for a long time. Elements of the
classical theories of personality found their way into many disciplines
other than psychology as well as into many of our social institutions and
enterprises. [...]
The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud's observations about a
small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions
about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be
overstated.[...]
We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly
understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as
opposed to those who cower or "run" too much. [George K. Simon, Jr., "In
Sheep's Clothing"]
Now, let me recommend that those of you who are interested in Truth take a
look at my blog post on "How to Spot a COINTELPRO Agent."
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-spot-cointelpro-agents.html
Keep in mind that the booklet I am quoting from there was compiled by
activists from earlier days that had direct experiences where they were able
to see only afterward how they had been duped and sidelined. My grandmother
always said: "A smart man learns from his mistakes; a genius learns from the
mistakes of others." In the case of COINTELPRO, some of those activists were
smart, but not geniuses. Most of them got "taken out", and some of them
literally had their lives completely destroyed because they were sincere and
stubborn. The material in that booklet is priceless today because those who
compiled it paid a high price to learn those things. Let's try to be
geniuses here.
As Robert Canup writes, we face a particular, even monstrous, problem in our world: that most of
what we know or think we know is based on plausible lies. A person who is sincere and speaks the
truth really has almost no chance against a plausible liar. Yes, I know that goes against everything we have been taught from childhood in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave," but it is all too sadly true. We have
been taught that "the Truth will always win" and that "anybody who believes a lie about you wasn't your friend to begin with", and a whole host of other platitudes that actually would work in a different world: a world
run by people who tell the truth!
But since our world is run by people who lie for a living, you might expect
that they have set things up so that liars will always win. And that is, oh
so sadly, the case.
"Our culture agrees on the signs of lying. Ask anyone how to tell if
someone is lying and they will tell you that they can tell by "lack of eye
contact, nervous shifting, or picking at one's clothes." Psychologist Anna
Salter writes with dry humor: "This perception is so widespread I have had
the fantasy that, immediately upon birth, nurses must take newborns and
whisper in their ears, "Eye contact. It's a sign of truthfulness." [Anna C.
Salter, Ph.D.]
The problem is, if there is a psychopath - or those with related
characteropathies - who doesn't know hot to keep good eye contact when
lying, they haven't been born. Eye contact is "universally known" to be a
sign of truth-telling. The problem is liars will fake anything that it is
possible to fake, so in reality, eye contact is absolutely NOT a sign of
truth telling.
The practiced liar: a category of liar that even experts find it difficult
to detect.
Problem is, even when dealing with people who are not practiced liars, such
as college students who have volunteered for a research study of lying, most
observers are not as good as they think in detecting deception. The research
shows consistently that most people - even most professional groups such as
police and psychologists - have no better than a chance ability to detect
deception. Flipping a coin would serve as well. ...
The ability to charm, to be likeable, to radiate sincerity and truthfulness,
is crucial to the successful liar - and they practice assiduously.
"Niceness is a decision," writes Gavin De Becker in "The Gift of Fear." It
is a "strategy of social interaction; it is not a character trait." ...
Despite the decades of research that have demonstrated that people cannot
reliably tell whose lying and who isn't, most people believe they can. There
is something so fundamentally threatening about the notion that we cannot
really know whether or not to trust someone that it is very difficult to get
anyone - clinicians, citizens, even police - to take such results
seriously. [Salter]
This is an issue that will never die. It seems impossible to convince people
that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind,
nonviolent individuals behave well in public, but so do predators, rapists,
murderers, pedophiles and COINTELPRO agents who help to shape the culture in
which we live.
No, they weren't always called COINTELPRO, but the principle is the same. It
has been used since time immemorial.
The earliest written records we have are of "clappers" in the audiences of
theaters in ancient Greece. What do you think the term "Greek Chorus" means?
The chorus offered background and summary information to help the audience
follow the performance, commented on main themes, and showed how an ideal
audience might react to the drama as it was presented. They also represent
the general populace of any particular story." Discussion boards are ideal
formats for "Greek Choruses" as they can be vectored to "show how the ideal
audience ought to react," and to "represent the general populace." In this
way, the illusion can be created of a concensus when, in fact, such a
concensus may not exist.
Polls are another example of Greek Choruses or Clappers.
We have exactly that in the present day in the form of the mainstream media.
Did you think that, with the power of the internet to reach millions of
people that the "powers that be" would have ignored the necessity of
installing a "Greek Chorus" on the net " in the form of the "Alternative
Media" and even the so-called 911 Truth Movement???
Consider our legal system. Here you first have to ask yourself just what
kind of people were in charge of the creation and shaping of our "social
norms." Now sure, everybody will agree with the sayings that "you can't
trust a politician," or "power corrupts" and so on, but have you ever really
stopped to think about that and what it must really mean?
Most people have heard of Ted Bundy; the serial killer who was executed in
Florida several years ago. Not many people are aware of the fact that Bundy
was studying to become a prosecutor, and that eventually he hoped to become
a judge. Those that do know that fact see it as some strangely ironic twist -
an inexplicable quirk in Bundy's bizarre makeup. It never seems to occur to
most people that the perfect place for a psychopathic serial killer to hide
in society is as a prosecutor or a judge; but I assure you that it occurs to
the Psychopaths of the world. ... The ONLY difference between them and Ted
Bundy is that they were able to control outward signs of their Psychopathy
until they achieved their goal of being in a position of authority. [Canup]
Richard Dolan has pointed out that those at the top will ALWAYS take whatever measures necessary to
stay at the top, and when knowledge is power, that means that they will make sure that they are in
control of what people know or think they know. The sad fact is that as a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian. Social stratification and segregation
leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, and this promotes the use of "cheating strategies" in life which then makes the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general. Such individuals may begin their lives in the lower socio-economic levels, but they often rise to the top. Psychopathic behavior seems to be on the rise because of the very nature of American capitalistic society. The great hustlers,
charmers, and self-promoters in the sales fields are perfect examples of where the psychopath can thrive. The entertainment industry, the sports industry, the corporate world in a Capitalistic system, are all areas where
psychopaths naturally rise to the top. Psychopaths seek power over others, it's that simple, and they gravitate to any field where there is power: medicine, law, industry, politics. It has always been that way; this is
nothing new. Indeed, they comprise a very small segment of the population with an extremely large influence. It is due to this influence and the plausible lie that they can magnetize normal, decent people to follow them. They
can make social conditions bad so that people feel oppressed and abused, and then they can easily blame it on someone else and agitate the people to go after and kill others based on such lies. Machiavelli discussed this
sort of system plainly and openly and it has been the system of power since Cain killed Abel.
So, consider the idea that the ideas behind our social and cultural systems - including the legal
system - were created by people whose agenda was to control society so that they could stay on top.
And think about all the many ways they might go about doing that.
These are the same people who set up the legal system so that people would "get what they
deserved"
Now, just think about that for a moment.
Imagine that you are a person at the top of the heap who knows that if you really set up a system
where people got what they really deserved, you, yourself, would be instantly replaced - out the
door in an instant! And so, if you are not just intent on staying on top and holding power, but cunning also, you will do
everything in your power to insure that you and your kind are in charge of setting up that system,
and that you remain in charge of it. You would make certain that evil was blended into the social and cultural concepts so seamlessly that nobody would ever notice.
And that is, quite literally, what happened. The individuals "at the top of the heap," who had
gotten there by being the most vile and rapacious, then set about figuring out ways to deceive the
masses all the while keeping their favor and adulation. They knew they had to make laws to keep order, and they knew they had to make those laws seem fair and reasonable to the masses of people or they would lose control.
Losing control was the thing to be feared as anyone who has read The Prince by Machiavelli realizes.
And so, Machiavellian manipulators at the top of the heap were deeply
involved in the formation of our cultural and social norms, including our
legal system.
In the earliest days of this "legal system" there was a form of "justice"
called "trial by ordeal". An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red
hot iron to a defendant's tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this
behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have a dry mouth
and would be burned by the iron - while a truthful person would have a moist
mouth and would be protected.
The fact is a NORMAL person who is telling the truth would most definitely
have a dry mouth from fear, while a psychopath, who is incapable of feeling
fear, would be the one with the moist mouth!!!
Now, just think about that for a few minutes.
(You might want to read my article on Ponerology
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm
and other articles on psychopathy,
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm
which quote extensively from several clinical psychologists on the subject
of psychopathy just to get a real handle on the issue we are facing.)
Now, our current legal system is descended from "trial by ordeal" - and
really isn't much different though it is much cleverer and simply not as
obviously evil as that one was. You have already read a few examples above
of just how the system works. As Anna Salter said, if she was accused of a
crime, she would rather have a good lawyer than be innocent. That is a truly
sad statement on our reality.
Suppose that you are on a team that is engaged in a game and you discover that:
The other team gets to make up the rules. The referee plays for the other team. One of the rules
is that you are not allowed to score - the other team is at no risk Only you can be scored
against.
That is precisely how our social, cultural, and legal systems operate.
The conditions of our world are designed to create the maximum chance that
evil will prevail and the good people will be punished by being good and
telling the truth.
Punishing normal, decent, good people involves more than just creating a
social system that acts against them. The system is designed to insure that
these good people are subjected to as much pain as possible for the simple
fact of being good and honest. An obvious example of punishing the innocent
may be found in the way the victim in a rape case is treated; their
reputations are dragged through the dirt - all in the name of justice of
course. Note the case quoted above, of the fellow who raped his sister and
her daughter and walked out of court after accusing her of being a mental
case.
The system that controls our thinking is set up like the legal system.
People are taught to assume that, in any conflict, one side is lying one
way, and the other is lying the other way, and people can just form opinions
about which side is telling the truth. They are taught that the truth will
lie somewhere between two extremes.
That is a wonderfully plausible lie.
To see the evil behind that plausible lie, we must make a different
assumption: let us assume that in such cases, one side is innocent, honest,
and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent defendant no
good; what lie can he tell? If he is innocent, the only lie he can tell is
to falsely confess "I did it."
On the other hand, lying is nothing but good for the liar. He can declare
that "I didn't do it" and accuse another of doing it; all the while the
innocent person is saying "I didn't do it" and is telling the truth.
The truth - when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person
look bad - especially if he is honest and admits that he has faults. If
someone is telling the simple truth, and the other side is lying through
their teeth, the basic assumption that the truth lies between the testimony
of the two sides always shifts the advantage to the lying side and away from
the side telling the truth. Under most circumstances, this shift put
together with the fact that the truth is going to also be twisted in such a
way as to bring detriment to the innocent person, results in the advantage
always resting in the hands of liars.
Even the simple act of giving testimony under oath is useless. If a person
is a liar, swearing an oath means nothing to that person. However, swearing
an oath acts strongly on a serious, truthful witness. Again, the advantage
is placed on the side of the liars.
Proof is a familiar concept to those used to conventional logical thinking.
However what passes for proof in cultural, social, and even legal terms
often bears only a superficial resemblance to what would be considered proof
by those who really use their minds to think.
For example: in formal mathematics, proof rules are established - postulates
are set out and a structure is built based on the postulates and the
theorem. Mathematical proof is pretty much inarguable: once a proof is
accepted as true it is added to the pool of known truths.
In legal proof there is a set of rules and a theory which the prosecution
presents, and attempts to prove the theory by clever argumentation rather
than facts. Truth is not the objective. Getting other people to believe the
theory IS the objective. However, the prosecution's theory is whatever the
prosecutor believes that he can get away with based on what is known about
the case, or what he can PREVENT from being known. What legal 'proof' does
is serve as a structure for convincing a group of people of the guilt of a
person, about whom they know nothing.
There is another significant difference: Mathematical proofs are judged by
experts in the particular case who are free to study any and all information
about the case. Legal 'proof' is judged by people who are guaranteed to be
ignorant of the case, who are only allowed to study the information
presented during the formal trial, and who are not even allowed to consult
the texts for what the rules say.
Our culture is so permeated with this "legal argument" system that it
extends into our daily experience: the one who is the slickest at using the
structure for convincing a group of people of something, is the one who is
believed. Very few people take the time to obtain hard facts by carefully
studying any and all information about a situation.
What we see something here that is set up to deceive people by presenting a
familiar structure which, upon examination, is a sham. And again, the
advantages fall to the hands of the liars.
In a courtroom, juries are prohibited by law from knowing anyone involved in
the trial. If the defendant is a good person who is being set up and framed,
people who know him well and who have had much opportunity to interact with
him over a long period of time and observe him would have much more trouble
accepting lies told about him. If the jurors knew the prosecutor and knew
him to be a bullying liar, they might have trouble believing the lies he was
telling. If the jurors knew the defendant, and know him to be a trouble
making villain they might be more likely to convict him.
By the same standards, if a person who is guilty is accused of a crime that
he DID commit, as we have seen above, it is all too easy to get off. Corrupt
lawyers, ignorant "experts," and blind judges let guilty people literally
get away with murder all the time.
But, none of the conditions conducive to finding the TRUTH prevail in a
courtroom even if we have been brainwashed to think that we have the "best
legal system in the world." It is not much different than "Trial by Ordeal,"
only the hot poker has been replaced by a system that works as effectively
to the advantage of liars.
Here then we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the
world safe for evil people. In effect the law serves to take the horns away
from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive,
overwhelming, advantage is placed in the hands of liars. Indeed, without the
legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult
place for evil people.
Everyone knows somewhere deep inside, that there is something not right
about our world. In fact, at the present moment, it could hardly be worse.
But most people spend their lives avoiding that fact at all cost. The brutal
truth is that the our social, cultural, and legal systems are all about
making people helpless then hammering them without mercy - all the while
involving everyone in the illusion that right prevails - that it CAN
prevail.
This is an issue that will never die. It seems impossible to convince people
that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind,
nonviolent individuals behave well in public, but so do predators, rapists,
murderers, pedophiles, and COINTELPRO agents who operate largely to shape
and vector "social norms," or "official culture."
And that includes the 911 Truth Movement.
Laura
