Down on the (funny) farm

Veronica Chapman

September, 2006

There are very few links in this essay. That is deliberate. Its point is not to engage in specifics, but to present the overall picture. It is not necessary to inspect every tree closely, in order to see the forest. It is just as important to know HOW and WHY one is being fooled, as it is to know WHAT, precisely, the ‘fooling’ itself comprises.

9/11 was ‘the ultimate psy-op’. And a very big ‘test’. A deliberate ‘test’ on the human psyche, worldwide of course, but aimed primarily at the psyche of Americans, 225 years after what they consider to be their ‘independence’.

It had been ‘brewing’ for many, many, years. There is good reason to suppose that the specific plans were laid in the early ‘90s, during Bush Senior’s Presidency. And that these plans were kept ‘on ice’ – in exactly the same way that Iraq was kept ‘on ice’, by sanctions – during the Clinton years.

Clinton was necessary because ‘rotating Democrats & Republicans’ fools the American population (and the world at large) into thinking that their democracy ‘works’ – when, in point of fact, it hasn’t - for decades. (At least since Carter, and probably long before, for example that LBJ, almost diametrically opposed to JFK, could take over from JFK).

(JFK was the last Presidential incumbent to actually take the job seriously, on behalf of the American people … eventually. And he paid the ultimate price).

What is happening was documented in George Orwell’s 1984 (PDF Download). Anyone who has not read that book is urged to read it, together with Orwell’s other masterpiece, Animal Farm.

Fundamentally it all comes down to what Orwell defined as ‘doublethink’. This is the ability to hold AT LEAST TWO OPPOSING views in a person’s brain at the same time. The ability to slide each to the fore, and argue it vehemently, as circumstances dictate.

Note: Even while, at the very same time, that person knows & holds the diametrically opposing view, and can switch to arguing that view, just as vehemently, as different circumstances dictate.

As Orwell says in his book, even the very concept of ‘doublethink’ demands a certain amount of doublethink.

Once this method of thinking has been instilled into the population of this planet, then anything is possible. ‘Reality’ and ‘Truth’ no longer have any meaning. As Karl Rove said, a year or more ago, “We make reality … it’s what we say it is”. (They love to brag).

So how does this relate to 9/11? Well, first and foremost it is doublethink to know that, on the one hand, it could actually happen – not being preventable by any Government Agency yet, at the same time, knowing the FBI ‘solved’ it, completely, within 24 hours.

Those two concepts are pretty mutually exclusive.

Then we have the doublethink in relation to the so-called ‘passengers of the aircraft’. According to the FBI, the alleged hijackers were on board each craft (having boarded normally, and would therefore be included in the Flight Manifests), and yet no Flight Manifest ever presented to the general public includes any of their names.

Consequently to believe the Official Government Conspiracy Theory requires the doublethink of ‘they were there’, but ‘they were not there’. At the same time.

We then have the doublethink in relation to the alleged aircraft themselves. On the one hand the Government ‘says’ what they were, while, on the other hand, has never offered one shred of proof (for example by means of Serial Numbers extracted from the debris).

(Of course one of the problems with this, is the almost total lack of any debris. Some more doublethink is required to assume that four commercial airliners could almost completely vanish from the face of Mother Earth on one single day, leaving no discernable trace of their previous existence).

This only scratches the surface of the doublethink necessary to believe the Official Government Conspiracy Theory. For example more doublethink is necessary to come to terms with the fact that the alleged hijackers committed suicide because they were Fundamentalist Islamics, while at the same time being coke-headed alcoholics trained at US Military Bases. Further doublethink is necessary to accept total incompetence of the part of the FAA during the morning, and the perfection of their actions in the immediate safe grounding of all other aircraft, at a moment’s notice.

It is, therefore, no wonder that so many Alternative Conspiracy Theories should be proposed in an effort to reduce each part of the puzzle to some semblance of singlethink.

However, the perpetrators of 9/11 (the ‘perps’) were not stupid. They knew that many people would slip naturally into doublethink mode, for the very simple reason that, over many years, the vast majority of the population of this planet have been specifically schooled in the art of doublethink. (Brainwashed is, of course, another way of putting it).

The primary methods for the brainwashing were, of course, advertising and the methods of education.

Due to the unrelenting nature of the former, and the complete lack of addressing the pitfalls by the latter, it is now possible to (for example) ‘up one’s status in the world’ by buying a particular vehicle (e.g. SUV), or to attract the opposite sex with a certain hairspray.

Where’s the doublethink is attracting the opposite sex with a hairspray? Well, doesn’t your personality have much more to do with attractiveness than a particular hairspray?  (Cleanliness and hygiene are important, but a specific hairspray is not, particularly relevant to that aspect. Neither is the car you drive, or whether you even drive a car).

That was a pretty banal example. Valid, but banal.

A better – political – one would be where, in news report of any industrial strife, the Management is always ‘offering’ (conciliatory), whereas the Unions are always ‘demanding’ (aggressive). Subtle, but persistent.

An even better one would be to consider, for example, statements made by the 64th US Secretary of State (under Clinton), Madeleine Albright. She was criticized for defending the sanctions of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, which led to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. In 1996, she made highly controversial remarks in an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes. Asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

This was a clear cut case of (US & UK, egged on by Israel) state-sponsored ‘terrorism’ – yet it was defended, and put across by the statements above, as ‘policy’.

Why ‘terrorism’? Here’s Chambers Dictionary on the subject:

terrorism noun the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands.

(My highlighting) ‘Community’ refers to civilians.

Here’s Chambers Dictionary on ‘war’:

war noun an open state of armed conflict, especially between nations.

Ms. Albright obviously had trouble understanding the difference. Do you?

Then, of course we can draw on many other examples, for example that of the USS Cole, alleged to have been attacked by the (mythical) Al-Qaeda group in 2000. This was declared to be an ‘act of terrorism’.

Of course, no-one would deny that deliberately attacking a US Naval vessel, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39, was anything other than an atrocious act … however can we get the definition right? The USS Cole was a US Naval vessel. That is ‘military’. And the USS Cole was way outside its own territorial waters (which it was supposed to be defending). The bombing of the USS Cole was an act of war, not terrorism.

Does this matter? Well … yes it does. By referring to it as ‘terrorism’, the ‘terrorism pile’, the ‘stack of terrorism we are faced with’, gets yet another addition. Adding to the ‘terrorism pile’ enables restrictive legislation to be incrementally steamrollered through political processes.

So, the brainwashing into naturally-accepting doublethink has been widespread, relentless, and worldwide.

9/11 was the ‘test’, to see how well it has worked, en masse.

There have, of course, been many other ‘tests’ over the years. The (non-existent) Gulf of Tonkin incident, the sinking of the Lusitania, the attack on the USS Liberty, and many others – even WW1 and WW2.

These ‘incidents’ were far afield, and therefore easy to manipulate into public awareness as doublethinks. Remote reporting had to be relied upon.

Other ‘tests’, closer to home, were JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, etc. – but these only involved very few players – the people themselves, and a very small (and controllable) ‘supporting cast’ e.g. Oswald, Sirhan, Ruby, etc.

9/11 did have its precursors, of course. The 1993 WTC attack, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City, to name a few. Provoking Iraq to attack Iran, provoking Kuwait, provoking Iraq to attack Kuwait, the Kosovo psy-op, etc. (You don’t go from the Gulf of Tonkin to 9/11 in one giant step. ‘Incrementalism’ is the method. Softly, softly, catchee monkey.)

But 9/11 was the ‘big test’. And – as such – was very carefully ‘layered’.

Some of the initial ‘layering’ has already been discussed (the alleged planes and alleged hijackers, etc.). This provides a ‘primary gating’ layer, to separate certain sheep from certain goats and certain cows. In other words those who instantly leap into doublethink mode and vehemently support the Official Government Conspiracy Theory (the sheep), and those who don’t (the goats & cows).

The next stage of the ‘layering’ is to divide the goats from the cows. This layer was very cleverly organised. It involved making sure that there were sufficient ‘obvious’ holes in the Official Government Conspiracy Theory (there are hundreds of them), such that various UnOfficial Conspiracy Theories could be constructed.  (During this process, and dancing to the tune of the ‘perps’, a glaring example of goat-like doublethink is to endlessly discuss whether or not the fires could weaken or melt steel – while at the same time a Jet Engine itself is comprised mainly of steel, titanium, and an aluminium housing. This device is designed to burn Jet Fuel at optimum heat release. Do Jet Engines weaken or melt when ignited?).

And, one essential component of this under-layering, was that unravelling the real truth would be a lengthy and complex process. Once more, the ‘test’ was to see how many could stay that particular course, without getting too tired and battle-weary, and so give up. (In other words there were ‘complexity’ and consequent ‘grinding down’ components).

There was also a ‘dazzlement’ component. Applying advertising techniques. This was the wall-to-wall coverage of the ‘cartoon aircraft’, ‘hitting’ the South Tower. Further ‘dazzlement’ was applied in the form of the actual collapse of the Twin Towers.

(The collapse of the third building, WTC7, was deliberately hidden mainstream. It was likely to be a honey pot to attract UnOfficial Conspiracy Theorisers. In another layer the ‘Dancing Israelis’ was provided, almost certainly another honey pot to be picked up some, since later on this could be used to apply an ‘Anti-Semitic’ tag to the entire Truth Movement)

So now we have the situation today where the sheep, who accept doublethink naturally, are set against the goats and the cows.

We also have the goats, who recognise that doublethink exists, and that 9/11 was an Inside Job, but don’t really understand doublethink when they apply it in their own thought processes. (For a discussion of this it would be necessary to delve into specifics of major UnOfficial Conspiracy theories. Plenty of examples of doublethinking critique here and here).

And, finally, we have the cows, who ruminate slowly on each piece of the puzzle, and carefully assess whether or not doublethink is required in order to assimilate this piece. If doublethink is required, the piece is rejected. If only singlethink is required, the piece is collected and assimilated into the whole.

The thing about cows is this. Because of close proximity, they are able to spot bullshit a mile away.

That is, basically, what is happening.

But there is, unfortunately, even more. There is also an ‘acceptance’ component to this ‘test’ - applied to the goats - in order to create the required doublethinking. This aspect allowed the goats, and the cows, to run with their UnOfficial Conspiracy Theories for a while, and then to introduce a few ‘key players’ to apparently take up cudgels on their behalf. The objective was to see how well the goats would collect around those honey pots. And how many of the cows could be persuaded to do so, having been ‘ground down’.

There was a further benefit to the introduction of these ‘honey pots’ which was that – if the goats swarmed – then a movement of the Truth Timeline would follow suit. It would mean that the discovery of the Truth of 9/11 could be manipulated forwards, to the time when these ‘key player/honey pots’ rose to prominence, thereby assisting plausible deniability for the media, as well as a no-man’s land for the perps to hide behind.

But, even then, 9/11 did not stop there. There was also an ‘intimidation’ layer, directed specifically at the goats & cows. This was supplied via the many glaring holes in the events of 9/11. It was designed to say to the goats, and in particular to the cows, “Yea … we know you know … and you know we know you know … so whacha gonna do about it … huh … we can do all this and you are small, alone, individual, and powerless … sucker … for all your ability to see the bullshit, there is nothing you can do”. A prime example of this was, of course, the murdered Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, which was embodied in the 7/7 spin-off psy-op.

Fortunately however (for all concerned) the ‘intimidation’ layer didn’t work (on either the goats or the cows).

The final layer was, of course, the ‘gratification’ or ‘profiteering’ layer which was, basically, the ultimate target. This comprised the massive profits made by the perps, as an end result of the whole psy-op test. The idea here was to test how well it all worked, how well reality could be manipulated for profit, and to milk those profits to the limit.

Quite whether we will be succumbed to more such ‘tests’ in the future rather depends (fundamentally) on the singlethinking cows, and whether or not they will succeed in turning the immense tide of doublethinking back to singlethink, in terms of pure and established science, logic, physics, etc.

It is reasonably safe to say that the population of Planet Earth succumbed to this test, and played their parts magnificently, proving that – in most aspects – the test itself was very carefully planned and executed.

How does one work? Within this paradigm? How does one extricate oneself from all the doublethink?

The first thing to remember is that most of the ‘cyber methods’ presented to you are designed to keep you within the bounds of the Funny Farm.

For example there are Internet Forums you can join, and Internet Chat Rooms. These are carefully designed to keep you under control. I’m indebted to a friend for the following definition of Chat Rooms and Forums:

“Innocent schnookies who go to Forums & Chat Rooms aren't aware they're in a toilet getting behaviour modification from the germs. They think they're doing their duty to find truth, and instead they get (love the term) Digital Herpes, a brain disease that makes one believe that believing in hard planes and soft buildings is "rational"

Then, of course, there are the groups, such as Yahoo Groups. Here you can bitch away to your heart’s content, never actually achieving anything (the BBC even poke fun at you by calling for comments, and actually calling it “Let off steam”).

This is all designed to ensure that you remain within the controlled Forum, Chat Room and Group environment on the Internet. The bitching runs around the group. It's their way of controlling you. While people 'group bitch' in cyberland, they are not physically group together, and taking back their country.

Get the idea? Yahoo was designed to control you and to blunt you. Together with the ‘commenting facilities’ universally provided under written articles. All designed to keep you harmlessly wasting your time, while the ‘infiltrators’ provoke you with insulting & dismissive comments.

This was, and is, all a part of the ‘test’.

If, on the other hand, you think there is some merit in a Forum, etc., you could try posting something like this (below) to the Administrator. If the Administrator is genuine, he or she would recognise the commonsense in it, and would instigate some mechanism to clean up the Trolls. (Once again I’m indebted to another friend for writing this):

The general purpose of this message is to notify you about what appears to be The Deliberate Suppression of Scientific & Quasi-Legal Substantive Discussions within your Forum.

What are YOU going to do about this?  My suggestion would be to CLOSELY moderate both the initial postings and subsequent comments for anything that even TALKS ABOUT personal attacks -- then DELETE that post or comment, stating your reasons for doing so.  You may also want to apply the same DELETION WITH STATED REASONS policy to any comment posted that SOLELY attacks any attempt at research in general -- without substantively and specifically stating any scientific, legal or other evidence that indicates that said research is bogus.

In my semi-humble opinion, solely stating that the research is "disinformation," "totally debunked," "discredits the 9/11 truth movement," etc., etc., etc. should NOT be allowed regarding THIS research at THIS time.

For the sake of A FAIR HEARING ON THE MERITS of these issues, would YOU please step in and DO SOMETHING EFFECTIVE! If we are ever going to get to the truth of the scientific, eyewitness, and other evidence FOR AND AGAINST any issue, then YOU will need to DO SOMETHING EFFECTIVE.

Please devise a strict comment and/or blog posting DELETION policy (either as sketched out above or otherwise) that will ensure that these issues are discussed on their merits and not on preconceived notions about who likes whom and who likes what.  This is not science.  Science is not a popularity contest.  Otherwise the Earth would still be flat.

Others have concluded that you are NOT moderating these debates in an appropriate manner because you want to encourage the 9/11 cover-up perp's Divide-And-Conquer Strategy of chaos & conflict on these issues -- to make sure that these issues do NOT get due process and a fair hearing.  Given what I have seen from you so far, I expect that you will be fair and balanced.  Tongue out

But, don’t hold your breath waiting for any effective policy to happen.