| Viewing Single Post From: The Great American Bubble Machine | |
|---|---|
| Miragememories | Jul 7 2009, 12:07 PM |
|
I've heard this tiresome list of incredulity arguments over and over; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - No one could possibly handle the guilt created by involvement in the deaths of thousands of countrymen. The impossibility of maintaining secrecy from friends or family, placing them "in the know", and effectively making them collaborationists in mass murder. The inability to stomach such an act. The missed opportunity to reap untold fame and riches by remaining silent. The lid of silence is supposedly easily removed. The word would be leaked by the flood from "loose lips" by those in the know. If a whistle blower is "disappeared" why not his family and acquaintances as well? The leaks would be too many to contain. Secrets are not easily concealed. Watergate was a small secret that could not be "contained". Clinton's sexual escapade revealed. People love to talk equates to always talk. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - On the surface, this list does appear to be a reasonable case for incredulity. But is it really? Do we really live in a society where "whistle blowing" on such a grand scale is as credible as Bernie big shorts wishes us to believe? I agree that guilt can be an unbearable burden, but it can be removed by a strong sense that the guilty act was "right", and/or by deluding oneself into believing others carry the real weight of responsibility. In Germany, the generals were not guilty for the deaths of millions, they were only following orders. In reality, secrets do come out. But do they spread? Who do you call? Who will listen or wants to listen? Reaching your mythical state of wealth and fame Bernie big shorts, requires a complete and willing support from those who are empowered to "spread the word". The Press at one time, before they became "owned", attempted to spread the results of their in depth investigations. The only reason Watergate didn't wither on the vine was because John Dean revealed the existence of Nixon's tapes. Given his unquestionable credibility as Nixon's legal counsel, Dean could not be ignored, and the Press and the Watergate investigators were compelled to follow his lead. Obviously many others, including those with low-status, must also have been aware (the tapes had to be processed and cataloged), but chose to remain silent. The news of Clinton's picadillo was a reflection of the tabloid times we live in. JFK had far more colorful sexual escapades outside of his marriage, but the press at that time said nothing, choosing to treat presidential daliances as a taboo subject until the "gloves came off" years later when Nixon disgraced the office of the president by sanctioning the breaking of public laws. Now the Press focus their investigative energies primarily on creating entertainment news, such as the latest angle on Michael Jackson. Meanwhile a wealth of incriminating knowledge about 9/11 has been collected by large groups of people representing various professional, military, intelligence and government associations. Yet those in power who should respond don't, largely because the "owned" Mainstream Press, totally ignore or grossly distort these revelations. So tell me Bernie big shorts, if you had "guilt inducing knowledge about 9/11", who would you call that you honestly believe would listen and take effective action? MM |
![]() |
|
| The Great American Bubble Machine · Breaking News | |




2:19 AM Dec 3