In front of a buddy’s surf shop/residence in Galveston, March 18
Hi folks,
I screwed up last post by not referencing DNA in this paragraph:
‘It’s not just Hancock who encounters snakes in his spirit-wanderings: In fact, intertwined snakes is an archetypal image that crosses all cultural/racial and even historical (meaning reports from centuries ago) bounds when a person visits the spirit world (assuming – and it’s admittedly a doozy of an assumption – that the spirit world is ‘real’). This could be really important.’
I don’t how I did it but I forgot to mention why it could be important! In fact, the whole thrust was lost without my pointing out that the entwined snakes are a dead ringer for the DNA strand that defines and produces human beings! So there is a threesome, not just a measly twosome, here: The common snake images, the cosmic Birkeland currents that produce stars, and DNA. And yes, the implications of this could be really important.
#
Two posts ago I raised a bit of a hue and cry with my video/interview with my old friend, sports photographer Walter Iooss. If you haven’t viewed it, you might go back and do so…
I got some interesting reactions. By far most of the messages were supportive (of me) and reflected surprise and even outrage at Walter’s flip-flop (over whether the WTC images were fabricated or not). I did not get even one that suggested Walter might have changed his mind based on ‘reality,’ i.e., that he’d made a mistake in saying there had been chicanery by the media, and corrected the mistake in the second interview (Part Two). For me, this was cool but unsurprising; I figure most of the truly asleep amongst you guys had been ‘voluntarily’ culled via the Bail Out Button.
However, my assumption that all who actively (sent emails) or passively supported ‘my side’ (disagreeing with Walter that I’m ‘kooky’ or outright ‘certifiable’) realized the implications of their stance. By this I mean these folks ought to understand that the video is dead-inarguable proof that not only was 9/11 an op perpetrated (largely or wholly) by a cabal inside the U.S. government, but that the U.S. media (at least the TV media, on the top and on some other level) was directly, actively involved. In fact, the media was undoubtedly the single most important participant in the 9/11 terror attacks.
This is what the video either says or implies.
My point is that if you don’t agree with the above then you really ought to be on Walter’s side, his flip-flopped side (and should not have supported me, either actively or passively), i.e., your interpretation of the video should be that Walter ‘changed his mind’ for good reason. (In which case the Orwell quotes I put in are meaningless. They are in fact a further reflection of my insanity.)
Click to read…
This is Critical Thinking 101, no? But there’s a catch 22 here: If you failed the original CT 101 (in the sense that you do not realize that the media was directly involved with the 9/11 Op), then it’s perfectly ‘logical’ that you might simultaneouslybe outraged at Walter’s flip-flop — even though this makes no sense since you really ought to opine that Walter changed his mind with ‘good reason.’
Point being: since, at least on this subject, you appear incapable of CT 101, why not support me even though it makes no sense to do so?
Why suddenly start making sense now?! Whoppee!
I bring this up because I received two emails that each in their own way reflected irrationality in the above sense, or a slight offshoot of it. One was from a guy whom I tried my best to straighten out months ago, a ‘9/11 Truther’ in the strictly Mainstream sense. An acolyte of Richard Gage/Steven Jones, who, for me, actually is scarier than, say, I dunno, a Chris Mathews (who at least makes money via his way of ‘thinking’).
For example, this fellow is incapable of understanding that the Walter video takes no sides in the ‘planes’ or ‘no planes’ issue. That’s not the subject of it. It simply demonstrates that the TV media subjected us to image fakery on 9/11.
How do you set straight someone who is incapable of perceiving this tiny slice of reality? (Yes, I happen to understand that no jetliners crashed that day – not into the WTC or anywhere else – but that is not what the video says.)
The other email sender is in a different category, more in keeping with the above catch 22. She originally emailed me saying that the video ‘makes me sick.’
So far so good. But then, when I wanted assurance that she understands that the WTC TV images are not real (were altered or outright fabricated), she insisted that they were real, and, further, ‘I wouldn’t say that I’m believing what the media tells me, but rather, what my eyes see.’
Given that Walter repeats at least six times in about as many minutes words to the effect of ‘yes, they’re faked,’ ‘looks like UFO footage,’ ‘someone… created this stuff,’ and so forth and so on, how a viewer could say she’s believing what her eyes see bespeaks of precisely the same mental processes that Walter underwent leading to his flip-flop. Except here it’s in reaction to seeing Walter’s processes. In other words, what we have here is a sort of denial-double whammy, an example of doublethink that would wow Orwell himself.
How it ultimately went with this example: After a few frustrating back and forths I simply asked her to watch the video one more time and please pay attention. She promised she would. This was eight days ago. I’ve heard nothing back. Which means she has likely put this whole matter out of her mind (so to speak), which is the best way to deal with severe ‘cognitive dissonance’ (a fancy term meaning denial/doublethink).
#
I’m working on a post about Electric Universe theory and how it might relate to all the above; to the truth of ‘creation’(cosmic and biological) and to the deceit/denial that has prevented us from truly insightful knowledge about it.
Rather than rush it, I’ll post this now and get back to you when it feels right.
Give me about a week.
Allan
I’ve gotten some great emails over the past few days: keep ’em coming! (And keep in mind I’m having email-reply troubles – according to Yahoo because there is ‘suspicious activity’ on my account. Indeed!)