A ‘Dangerous’ Review

Given the Net’s predictive algorithms, anyone doing an online search for the book I have oft recommended, The Most Dangerous Book in the World; 9/11 as Mass Ritual, and who, in the process, has typed ‘the most dangerous…’ into the box, will see ‘game’ as the suggested/predicted next word before he can finish writing the desired title.

‘The Most Dangerous Game’ is an old short story (Richard Connell, 1924) and is one of the few ‘required’ readings I actually recall from my middle school years in our public educational system. The story is about an American big game hunter stranded on a tropical island, and who becomes the prey in a deadly game devised by a Russian aristocrat who is bored with hunting animals.

So yes, the hunter becomes the hunted. Since its original penning going on a century ago, this theme has formed the basis for countless movies/TV narratives, and given the predictive programming/reveal-their-method drift of most oft-repeated motifs, I can hardly avoid assuming that there is a ‘soft mind control’ agenda (however miniscule) behind this one – its being forced upon ‘young minds’ via the school system – the most obvious being something to the effect of ‘The Elite are natural predators of the Lower Classes’ or, better yet, an attempt to conflate biological Darwinism with its ‘social’ complement – a true obsession of those who would do us harm — in their linking of ‘survival of the fittest’ with bloodline concerns.

Whatever the twisted reasoning behind my having to read that story in my formative years, that I recall it out of all the crapola forced upon me surely says something about the intended psychological effect. The same is likely true for required readings like Brave New World, 1984, Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm, Catcher in the Rye, and so forth. (These are books I recall as being assigned before my junior year.)

Addendum: Although it means a whole bunch to me, ‘author’s intent’ means zilch to the PTB (‘Elite,’ ‘PTB’, ‘Deep State’, whatever!) in their concoctions of mind-twisting lists. For example, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World was undoubtedly written with mal intent (of the predictive/revelatory sort) while I believe (call it instinct) that Orwell’s works were warnings. He was, to put it simply and IMO, on our side. That his books are promoted (especially to the young, via the reading lists) is likely a function of the fine-tuning of PTB methodology.

Point being is that the line – or, rather, the theoretical mind control effect — between a warning and predictive programming (etc.) is unclear (at least to me). In fact, it’s looking more and more like some decision has been made by the PTB technocrats that narrative ‘warnings’ (of some dystopia to come) are now viewed en mass as ‘a good thing,’ i.e., ‘It’s all predictive programming, so the more the merrier!’ Based on the H-wood output of the last couple decades, this evolution of mind control philosophy would seem self-evident.

And there is some strange, sort of middle ground with this sort of soft mind control: As I maintained in my ‘debate’ with Joe Atwill, Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye did indeed have many references to Freemasonry (and I give Atwill credit for noticing this); but all of them, every one, was severely negative. Salinger obviously hated the Freemasons and was likely fearful of them, possibly for turning down some offer to work for them, and definitely after the publication of Catcher; hence his hermitic lifestyle. My hypothesis is that the use of Catcher as a ‘calling card’ in assassinations was an example of the wry, sick ‘wit’ of the PTB; linking Salinger’s book to horrendous acts of violence was a means of punishment. (Since Salinger’s death, Catcher-as-calling card for mind control-violence has ceased, maybe because there was no longer any point to it.)

As you may already have surmised via the above semi-tangent, I’ve decided to take my time in my analysis of The Most Dangerous Book in the World; 9/11 as Mass Ritual and, eventually, Who Built the Moon? Notwithstanding the odd tangent, my goal will be to show how they dovetail thematically, and on deeper, subtler levels as well. As is the case with any effective narrative, subtext is everything with both works, but for now I’ll stick to the ‘obvious’ in their thematic convergence: Both works presume and, on different levels, attempt to ‘prove,’ the existence of a ‘higher power.’ More, much more, to come on this, and on the possible nature of this… power. Expect a series of posts, like chapters in a book.

For brevity but also as a reminder, I’ll hitherto refer to the 9/11 book as ‘Dangerous’; the book is dangerous, on several levels. The first level of danger a reader faces is based on the inherent, usually unstated presupposition underlying author S.K. Bain’s big picture view (HTWRW) of the event we call 9/11: Dangerous slyly and often with wry, black humor mixes acceptance of, with contempt for, the official fiction. In a strange and largely effective (from the PTB’s perspective) way, and as we’ll see, Bain tries to play ‘both sides’ of the 9/11 issue, by simultaneously exposing ‘the method’ and indirectly lampooning ‘troofers’ and their obsession with historical veracity. To get anything useful out of the book, it must be read very carefully.

As I have said (virtually every time I mention it), the book was written at the behest of the perps (or perhaps at the behest of a warring PTB faction), i.e., by ‘one of them,’ albeit a denizen of a low tier in the pyramid; a ‘worker,’ but consciously so. S.K. Bain is no useful idiot (unwitting participant).

Bain freely admits his background association with PNAC honcho/9/11 perp William Kristol, but the real evidence that ‘our’ well being is not Bain’s motive lies in his mixing of astounding (and inarguable) truths with the worst sort of implied ‘official’ prevarications, as you’ll see in this series of posts, assuming I do my job.

Addendum: As I’ve said before, Dangerous is part ‘Revelation of the Method,’ part misdirection/disinformation, and part pure braggadocio on the part of the perps — an interesting but potentially confusing mix of agendas. Via the occult beliefs of at least one faction of the PTB (that of the perps themselves), they ‘have to’ tell us what they are going to do and what they have done. That they do so with a certain blackly humorous panache is not only Bain’s factual point but his style as well, Dangerous being at times a laugh-out-loud, philosophically slapstick romp; that humor could/would be prodded from the events depicted sucks the reader in, morally, making him/her an after-the-fact guilty party. As with a vampire on one’s doorstep, our acknowledgment of the humor amounts to an invitation for the blood sucker to ‘enter’; the perpetration of evil becomes a shared endeavor. Welcome to the occult.

But let’s start our Dangerous analysis with the Prolog; it does perfectly set the stage for what’s to come. It’s author, Peter Levenda – himself worthy of extended analysis – right from the get-go implies how the reader is viewed by the likes of him (and those ‘above’ him) by comparing ‘conspiracy theorists’ to someone freshly buried alive. Right up top he says:

‘Imagine a person buried alive. Imagine yourself. You are equal parts alive and dead…. blah, blah, blah (a mention of Masonic rituals), blah, blah… ‘To be ritually and symbolically slain, buried, and raised again is a feature of many initiatory programs around the world…’ Blah, blah… Conspiracy theorists are kind of like that. (My emphasis; end quote)

(Bain fails to mention the very first truth a 9/11 Troofer learns, having taken his initial, tentative step toward sanity: The ‘Official Story’ itself is of course a ‘conspiracy theory’ – involving scores of ‘conspirators’; by conservative count, at least 30, starting with Osama-in-his-cave as the ringmaster, to his mob of slimeball underlings, all conspiring their asses off. But Bain doesn’t mean that kind of conspiracy.)

So, not only are… well, let’s face it (since you’re reading this)… not only are we ‘kind of like’… dead… but Levenda goes on to tell us that [conspiracy theorizing] is ‘a soul-destroying enterprise’. Further, in one three-paragraph psychological roll, out of 163 words, Levenda manages to use the word ‘paranoia’ ten times; this comes in the midst of a four page (1,800 words) Prolog in which he sees fit to use the term ‘conspiracy theory’ (or some direct derivation thereof) seventeen times. (Shades of Corbett and ‘Flight 77’?)

Mmmm…. As a writer myself I can assure you that the main use of a thesaurus is not to find ‘fancy’ terms, but the avoidance of repeating words: The repetition of baggage-laden terms like ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘paranoia’ is a dead giveaway that good old NLP is afoot, i.e., we are being fucked with.

Levenda is apparently unaware that one of the substructures of How The World Really Works (HTWRW) is the soft mind control word game behind the term he is so fond of. Click here if you are unfamiliar with the history of the term ‘conspiracy theory,’ via CIA Document 1035-960, which launched the weaponized version in 1967. As part of Operation Mockingbird, the Agency instructed its media minions how to deal with those who ‘conspired’ to unearth the truth behind the JFK assassination. Make fun of ‘em! Make ‘conspiracy theory’ a thought-stopper! Levenda, and in the book proper, Bain are both (literally!) on the same (CIA) page in their multi-level use of the dreaded term.

Listen: The above analysis is no secret. Anyone who’s gone beyond ‘Truth 101’ should be completely aware of the weaponization of the term; I call the general use of weaponized language NLP for short, but call it what you will: These two guys are shouting in our faces that they’re ‘dirty.’ How about we listen? (Just to get it out of the way: the total uses of ‘conspiracy (whatever)’ in Dangerous comes out at a solid 81.)

One thing I’ve found, and it should be obvious if you haven’t thought of it, is that ‘dirty bastards’ run together. Find one, look around and you’ll find more dirty bastards. Birds of a feather, blah blah. These two dirty bastards, Levenda and Bain, are of course both up to their eyeballs in psy opery…

I imagine it going something like this between a couple mid-level PTB technocrats:

‘We got Ken Bain to write a limited hangout spilling all kinds of 9/11 occult beans but we need a ‘name,’ one of our alt media geniuses, to pen the Prolog.’

‘I’ll call Pete (Levenda).’

‘Perfect! His Sinister Forces series muddies all kinds of occult waters…’

‘And he’s got no 9/11 baggage to conflict with whatever misdirection Bain comes up with.’

The importance of ‘no 9/11 baggage’ will soon become evident, but in case you’re not aware of it, Levenda outright blurts this issue in his Prolog:

‘I have stayed away from 9/11 conspiracy theorizing since there are already a lot of people doing that and I have nothing of value to add to the conversation.’ (p viii)

One might ask, How does that work? We have this alt media ‘investigative journalist’ who ‘exposes’ all manner of ‘sinister’ shit, from Kabbalistic Nazis to the supernaturality of MKULTRA serial killers to UFO-inspired séances, meanwhile bridging the gap between magik and magic in the JFK assassination, and on and on, yet with 9/11 he has nothing of value to add to the conversation?

I’ve seen this before. In point of fact, those dirty bastards who can do so make a point of avoiding the subject of 9/11, and with a vengeance (one might say), so as to dodge outing themselves for what they are (dirty bastards) toward those who are paying attention.

A perfect example – and this of course is all over the comment section of this blog – is the ‘no planes’ issue. What government shill/dirty bastard in his right mind would want to chime in on that issue, given that even grade school physics tells us that whatever made the gash in the South Tower, it was no airplane? And with this simple truth, the worms pile out of the can… Noooooo. The dirties want no part of that.

Addendum: Should I blurt it here, right now, up front? (Long pause)… No, but I’ll give you a hint: I’ve repeatedly blabbed that the handling of the ‘no planes’ issue — mainly why it’s so violently avoided by the Truther Oligarchs – is meant to avoid the obviousness of the media’s direct complicity… Well, I’m now pretty sure I was wrong. The media is not the issue to be avoided with ‘no planes’. It’s something else entirely…

Peter Levenda (being interviewed by ‘Forum Borealis’):

‘You can make a case of no conspiracy at all in the JFK assassination’…

Ya say wha? Really, folks, I just heard him say that.

He then goes on to opine that all the ‘coincidences’ (as opposed to ‘conspiracies’) in the JFK killing might be based on… synchronicity… in other words, It was no one’s fault! JFK getting shot was… just the way the (metaphysical) cookie crumbles! Christ, talk about misdirection! And Christ, I can’t go on re Levenda-as-dirty bastard! Too much of an embarrassment of riches, but click here for a hint of what I mean.

By the way, this guy Borealis (the interviewer) is another dirty bastard. They do stick together. Easier and safer that way.

But let’s move on, shall we? I mean you get my point, right? Levenda and Bain are dirty bastards. In it together to mislead, misdirect, and just flat lie to us. But since we know this, maybe we can learn something important…

Oh, and hey, if you want to read along with me (or check up on me), I found a pdf of Dangerous. When I quote from the book I’ll include the page number for convenience. (With a little panache, you can also do document word searches to find stuff.)

After Levenda’s Prolog, Bain continues on with the same ‘conspiracy theory’ repetition in his Introduction, titling it ‘Dazed and Confused’ (in 20 pt. type), then, in only slightly smaller font, he reminds us yet again: ‘A Maze of Conspiracy Theories.’ Here’s Bain’s first full sentence in his Introduction:

There are so many conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 that it’s impossible to keep track of them all, much less sort through and make any real sense of them.

He finishes this thought a couple paragraphs down, with:

…it is easy to understand why a veritable 9/11-Conspiracy-Theory cottage industry has developed over the last ten-plus years.

I’ve claimed that Bain attempts to ‘play both sides’ of the 9/11 issue and perhaps that observation is too obscure. I mean: What do I mean? Best I subject you to a couple passages, both on page 7 of his Introduction:

‘Many conspiracy theories have been effectively debunked, while others have seen experts weigh in on both sides of the issue with equal effectiveness and remain an open question—leaving the general public with a sense of unease but precious few hard answers to allay their fears or confirm their suspicions one way or the other. [I would have used italics to emphasize the bullshit but… right… it’s all bullshit]

Given that the book came out in 2012, and given… oh, fuck… is he fucking serious? I mean, given the above, shouldn’t this piece of utter crapola be…I dunno… thrown out? Nah, burn the motherfucker!

But wait. Check this out, on the same page: 

Unfortunately the evidence points to a worst-case scenario. In a real-life CSI-meets-Dan-Brown, the picture that emerges is that of 9/11 as an ultra-powerful mind-control and propaganda weapon—a psychological warfare tool of enormous proportions—infused with techno-sorcery and deep-level occult programming. 9/11 was a global MegaRitual, and the painstakingly reconstructed occult script for the event contained herein convincingly shows this.

Holy shit! Now do you get it when I say Bain plays ‘both sides’ of the 9/11 issue? And we still have a Foreword to get through before the actual book starts.

Are you ready for this?

Allan