More on Thought Control
WHERE DO WE GO NOW? Not back to CNN or FOX NEWS!
Alan Homcy
Contrary to what we are led to believe by the mainstream media, there are millions of Americans who are waking up, who are learning for themselves that what we see on TV or read in Time Magazine is not necessarily the truth, or at least the whole truth. When one dares to look objectively, and by that I mean beyond preconceived notions of Democrat vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative, the vista widens. If you are courageous and secure enough in your allegiance to the idea of freedom on which this republic was founded, and are willing to fearlessly peek behind the curtains of government and industry, you may gain a new appreciation of the word patriotism.
If one is willing to expose himself or herself to alternative venues of reporting and commentary, a whole new world unfolds.
Word of warning: this world is messy. This world doesn’t come with pretty or glamorous wrapping. This world is populated by just as many hateful ideologues as FoxNews. You’ll probably be tempted to click back to CNN.com as soon as you see articles on chemtrails or chupacabras, but stay the course. "I’m a patriotic American who loves this country," you’ll say, "these people hate this country, they blame America for all the world’s problems." That’s OK. Stay the course. Read on. You may think: "They’re all a bunch of paranoid conspiracy whacko." You’re partially correct. Some of the opinions expressed on many of the alternative news and comment websites I frequent are so extreme that it’s hard to say if they’re left or right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong.
Modern America is infected with a terrible disease that hangs over us like a protective haze. It protects us from harmful thoughts and dangerous opinions, filtering out anything that threatens our precious worldview. This brain cloud prevents most of us from considering the possibility that the world may actually be radically different than what we have been taught and have come to believe. We dismiss out of hand and ridicule anyone who challenges conventional wisdom. If they persist, we slap a label on them. This makes us feel good that we’re not like them, and it renders illegitimate everything they say from that point on. Consider the case of Scott Ritter. After spending many years combing Iraq for WMDs, one would think that his opinions would at least merit some consideration. But since his conclusions were at odds with the official administration position, he was trotted out as some Commie circus freak time and again on the cable news channels and lambasted as unpatriotic and a Saddam sympathizer. He was neither; he was correct.
The government and the mainstream media frame all issues within generally accepted confines. Every issue is painted as a struggle between conflicting opinions, be they political, social, economic, or regarding international relations. We’ve grown comfortable with these conflicts, and we apply these models to make sense of the world around us. But too often these constructs only serve to prevent us from learning the truth.
Case in point: the 9/11 Commission. Public debate has devolved into finger pointing between the Bush and Clinton teams. Overnight, Richard Clarke has gone from a respected non-partisan anti-terrorism expert to a dupe of the Democrats. By characterizing his words as being politically motivated, the Republicans effectively water down their meaning, a tactic they learned from the master, Bill Clinton. Character assassination is now the preferred method of killing the damaging message. Never mind that Clarke’s version of events has been corroborated by numerous writers. Never mind that Paul O’Neil observed the same behavior in early Bush cabinet meetings. In today’s world, it no longer matters. Anyone who attempts to uncover truth is painted as a political plant.
Since September 12, 2001, a group of WTC widows has been pleading to find out why the attacks occurred. They refused the huge government payouts, and were instrumental in pressuring the president and congress to convene an investigation. They have pointed out the glaring inconsistencies in the official 9/11 version, begging both Democrats and Republicans to help them find answers to unanswered questions. Their message has never changed. The public record proves this. But immediately after they appeared on multiple Sunday morning news shows, Rush Limbaugh and others accused them of being Democratic inserts, hell-bent on lying about Bush to further the Kerry campaign. In the midst of the campaign, Limbaugh politicized their message; their words have never changed. Some of them even voted for Bush. But their unwavering quest for truth makes them dangerous, so they needed to be labeled and put in a box. Any thorough investigation into 9/11 unearths far more questions than answers, pointing to either gross systematic incompetence or complicity, neither of which the establishment is prepared to address. Both possibilities would so shake America’s confidence in our leaders that they must be deflected, and how better to accomplish this than branding the dissenters as "liberals" or "Bush haters."
So if you dare, wade into the world of alternative news and commentary web sites such as Whatreallyhappened.com, Rense.com, Axisoflogic.com, and Etherzone.com. You won’t see slick news marketing, but you won’t read pat, regurgitated, pre-packaged pabulum either. The hearts of investigative reporting and independent commentary are still beating, despite big media’s crusade to silence them. Warning: you may actually be forced to learn things you didn’t know and consider opinions contrary to conventional wisdom, but it’s a risk worth taking. Life is short, you deserve better.
axisoflogic.com
lurqer |
