Fear of Speaking Freely
Being afraid to speak, is a Civil Rights issue. Students, Teachers, Journalists and the Public should have the freedom to speak freely and to assemble, yet they do not.
Students and citizens need to know, to see and hear alternatives to mainstream media and decide for themselves what is fact and what is fiction. Important issues of fact are being intentionally omitted; key items of history are being rewritten and replaced with contrived innuendo. Few who are normally relied upon for investigation or debate, dare to stand up to these forces.
Just For Starters Consider these Issues:
Jekyll Island and the Fed * Operation Paperclip * Operation Mockingbird * MK-ULTRA * False Flags and Black Ops* The Gulf of Tonkin * Operation Northwoods * Warren Commission Report and the Kennedy Assassination * Alternative Currencies and Assassinations * The 9-11 Commission Report and the 9-11 attacks * Terrorism * Preemptive Invasion * Iraq * Afghanistan * Libya, Syria and Iran * Homeland Security * Rendition * Habeas Corpus * Fair and Speedy Trial * Domestic Terrorist * Enemy Combatant * Monsanto Protection Act * Patriot Act * NDAA, * Kill Lists and Drone Attacks * Trillion Dollar Bank Bailouts * Libor Scandals * CIA, NSA and DARPA * HAARP * Council of Foreign Affairs * Bilderbergers * Tri-lateral Commission * Power Families – Power Corporations – Power Media – Power Politics – Power Police * Free Elections * Dead Whistleblowers * Central Banking , Oil and War
In a truly “open” and free society multiple points of view would be welcomed, explored, researched, analyzed, discussed and debated. One’s belief or opinion would be arrived at by carefully weighing multiple sets of facts to arrive at a conclusion – a belief, a truth that resonates for that individual. It is called Critical Thinking and it has been replaced with engineered ignorance and perception management.
For 12 years Mainstream Media has been bludgeoning us with the same repeated message — now a conditioned Pavlovian response always occurs. The word terrorism is mentioned and like a drooling dog, fear, security and blind trust in government and the police always occurs. No questions are asked, no coincidences are explored because it’s drool time.
The issues raised above are not conspiracy speculation or supposition; they are all conspiracy facts that have been hidden from public view by Mainstream Media. Those that ask questions or call for investigations are being branded, diminished and harassed. They risk ridicule and often much more just for asking questions.
Come on America !
These are Free Speech issues and you only have to count to one – THE FIRST AMENDMENT to see what is going down. We have all heard the expression, “listen to both sides and the truth probably resides somewhere in the middle”. Right now, there are no “both” sides only one – one viewpoint. What words come to your mind when you live in a society that allows only one viewpoint?
http://deceptionsUSA.COM
Watertown
”The word terrorism is mentioned and like a drooling dog, fear, security and blind trust in government and the police always occurs. No questions are asked, no coincidences are explored because it’s drool time”
We just witnessed an excellent example of how well they have us conditioned. In the aftermath of the Marathon atrocity, the Boston Police invaded Watertown with armored cavalry and proceeded to establish Martial Law.
Houses were searched, people handcuffed and forced to lie on the ground, heads were beaten, etc.
And when the dust had cleared, what was the response of the residents? They praised the invaders for their “bravery”.
BTW, who were the Craft Mercenaries and what were they doing there? And isn’t it precious that they were dressed identically to the brothers, including their backpacks.
Watertown
“And when the dust had cleared, what was the response of the residents? They praised the invaders for their “bravery”.”
How can anyone suggest the people of Boston are cowards, including the police and leadership, while not discussing the effect the media and the unknown had on decision making, not simply irrational fear or regional docile natures. How many can say the images of 9/11 are not still in their minds, or the quiet of the skies afterward?
The city of Boston was in full, unrestricted operation immediately after the bombings on Monday – until after the MIT officer was shot late Thursday night, and a wild chase ensued in the early morning hours on Friday. (And, in the meantime, many thousands of Bostonians offered to open our homes to unknown marathon runners and international visitors who were unable to leave for safety reasons). The point was not to squash the civilian population with clubs and beatings, while inflicting huge economic losses for the entire city; it was to find unknown persons who were believed to have more explosives that could have killed trainloads of people on an underground subway system during the Friday morning commute. I would love to hear precisely when thoughtful discussions could have taken place and “coincidences explored.”
Work on the fear of speaking up and resistance to local authority that exists in Brattleboro (and all in the absence of any terror-like slaughter at the Strolling of the Heifers) then tell Boston all about cowardice, fear, dull citizen complicity with authorities, and how brave Brattleboro thinks it best to handle the rapid fallout from random bombings on her crowded streets filled with dead and wounded citizens and visitors. Just sayin.
Sorry
I guess I should have asked: What IS the plan in Brattleboro for a similar situation where a couple of hundred people get randomly blown away on Main Street by unknown bombers, for unknown reasons, all caught on film and replayed over and over again?
Will there be an official town committee convened to discuss various options and consider possible coincidences? Will there be a citizen coalition to resist the Brattleboro Police and the (no doubt) influx of Vermont State Police intruders who attempt to control traffic and stop people from entering or leaving the area before a clue can be had? Possibly an emergency course offering at in civil discourse and participatory democracy? What about the future of art?
Thank you Zippy. The local
Thank you Zippy. The local criticisms of Bostonians so willingly “giving” away their power to the police after the Marathon has been quite annoying. God forbid it should happen here. It really takes some nerve, or perhaps ignorance, to criticize anyone who has been in a situation like this and how they react.
And then of course we have the conspiracy theorists rearing their heads. Lord it takes some nerve.
Your last paragraph really pinpoints what’s been nagging me about all this criticism by the untested and unknowing. Thanks.
Thank you.
I certainly am not a cheer leader for the U.S. government, capitalism, or powerful officials and some of their interests. However, to refer to the residents of Boston (of all places in the country!) as an example of a fearful mass of dullards incapable of questioning what occurred (especially in the hours immediately after varying levels of serious psychic trauma and shock), or that every official and cop in the street would be complicit with a plan to subjugate and control the masses, is really too much.
No matter the opinions of WHAT actually occurred, it was not the “mention of the word terrorism” that caused a proud city with a disproportionate number of compassionate, and/or educated, and/or intelligent people (who contribute much to all nations and global problems every day). It was very real televised explosions and scattered legs, feet, kneecaps, tendons, blood loss, and dead innocents, (and the potential for it to happen again on the buses and trains that carry millions every day into the city every morning) that more likely explains why millions “voluntarily” supported the “recommendation” by police and leadership at the time, which again, was not “martial law” after the bombs went off. It was for less than 24 hours immediately after another innocent was shot in the head, a car hijacked by two individuals who boldly claimed (yes, I know, allegedly) responsibility, and the potential for further mass death (think 9/11; again, no matter the facts or contradictions) was looming; not an inability of millions to see, hold a dialogue, or consider contradictions.
All that said, I look forward to seeing more global contributions coming out of Brattleboro.
Eh what? God forbid it should happen here?
I suspected Chris’ article would have at least one anti-conspiracy putdown comment “rearing” (its head). I see Rosa doesn’t disappoint us when she writes “And then of course we have the conspiracy theorists rearing their heads. Lord it takes some nerve.” She was kind not to include the word “nut.”
As expected, many Americans see the world through their own “rosa” lens so it wouldn’t be original to counterpoint that the US is certainly considered to be a powerful terrorist country by tens of millions of people, both here and abroad.
At the Nuremburg trials Reich Marshall Herman Goring said, “Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all it is the leaders of the country whole determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag people along… Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”
Conspiracy “Facts”
Many thanks to the media for planting in American minds the word “theory” with conspiracy. ..And, like pablum, once tasted, it becomes pabulum for thought, and therefore, too easy to express. However, like most bland intellectualism, it is a weak charge against conspiracy mainly because often times, as Chris points out above, conspiracies are uncomfortably based in fact.
This letter in the Reformer shortly after the Boston incident contains interesting observations that stops short of leaving itself open to the damnable charge of rearing its conspiratorial head:
(Brattleboro Reformer, May 7) Two things were all over the Internet immediately following the bomb blasts in Boston. First were the many odd photos of security-type-guys around the finish line, all wearing black jackets and heavily-packed black backpacks. One of them was wearing a cap with a Craft Int’l logo. Craft’s motto is: “Despite what your momma told you … violence does solve problems.” The company was founded by recently murdered super-sniper Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. Second was a tweet by the Boston Globe saying: “Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.”
Next, I saw an anonymous post on April 15 from someone claiming to work on a security commission, and stating, in part: “They won’t find the suspect till later this week and the raid is issued to occur on Friday. This was a staged event. The people hurt are real but the event was planned.”
My first gut response to the bombings was that they reminded me of the anthrax attacks. I immediately wondered what was going to be shoved down our throats (i.e., like the Patriot Act). Imagine my surprise when ricin-laced letters were in the news the next day. As part of that story, NPR reported that Sen. Mary Landrieu got the news while in a “classified briefing about Boston.” Now, why would a briefing about Boston need to be classified?
Next was NPR’s bizarre interview with Dr. Schoenfeld of Beth Israel. The doctor claims to have been part of the ER team when Tamerlan Tsarnaev was brought in, but the transcript reads like a comedy shtick. When pressed to characterize the suspect’s wounds, Dr. Schoenfeld could only say how “Dr. Wolfe, the chair of our department” characterized them. Pressed further: “you know, for lack of a better term, a hole in the body.” Dr. Schoenfeld’s page on the Beth Israel website is blank.
Something doesn’t seem right.
~Jacqueline Brook
It's one thing to question,
It’s one thing to question, it’s another to embrace every crackpot idea that comes down the pike. That is weak intellectualism. To question the reactions of residents of a city when they have had a terrorist event occur because they embrace a police presence when they are in danger. And to question whether their sense of danger was real is ridiculous and it also smacks of meanness.
If such an event happened here in quiet, bucolic Brattleboro, it would be those most critical of what others do or questioning of the reality of events who would be running the fastest towards the police station for safety. He hit it on the head. So easy to be critical or throw out these nonsensical ideas about what happened when you haven’t had to experience the event close-up and firsthand. Makes it a lot easier to thump your chest with bravado and figure out what “really” happened even though you weren’t anywhere near the event or watched it on TV. If you don’t want to be called a wacko don’t behave like one.
"If you don't want to be
“If you don’t want to be called a wacko don’t behave like one.”
Sorry made a mistake there. If you don’t want to be called a nut don’t act like one.
To grasp onto every conspiracy concept that comes along isn’t an intellectual endeavor, it’s “faux”. Interesting in this conversation about Boston that the older brother had been quite taken in by all the 9-11 conspiracy theories and that had a lot to do with his turn towards this idea. His mother had told a client that she knew that Israel had bombed the towers not muslims because her son showed her on the internet. Nice job “citizen journalists”
There you go again...Talk about intellectual endeavors???
“To grasp onto every conspiracy concept that comes along isn’t an intellectual endeavor..”
I ask our readers, do you know of anyone who really grasps “onto every conspiracy concept that comes along…” ??
If you do, is it more than one person who grasps “onto every conspiracy concept that comes along…” or maybe one or two?
Maybe, what really happens, is that different people are prone to accept certain and different ideas from a variety of ideas currculating, and in fact most do not grasp “onto every conspiracy concept that comes along…”
Talk about intellectual endeavors???
yes, I do
Actually, I know of 4 people who glom onto any conspiracy theory that comes along. They are ardent consumers of conspiracy theory radio and YT vids and have a CT about nearly everything in the world. And they don’t even know each other.
The CT Glom Club
Sounds like introductions are in order.
They could start a CT Glom club !!
Aw, hell, why I might go to a Glom meeting myself…I feel a conspiracy coming on…..
🙂
It's this free exchange of ideas that I fear you are missing...
“. Interesting in this conversation about Boston that the older brother had been quite taken in by all the 9-11 conspiracy theories and that had a lot to do with his turn towards this idea. His mother had told a client that she knew that Israel had bombed the towers not muslims because her son showed her on the internet. Nice job “citizen journalists”
If this bothers you about the Internet, I imagine you would be equally bothered if their so-called “conspiracy” source came from:
the radio, TV, newspapers, blogs, magazines, a table at the The Works, a mime show, from a songwriter, or a little bird?
The source shouldn’t be condemned or blamed because someone elicited some ideas from it…it’s not the Internet, where you find the free exchange of ideas that’s the problem, but it also might or not also be the person.
It’s this free exchange of ideas that Chris and Lise mentions here, that I fear, you are missing…
I don’t know of any single
I don’t know of any single person who embraces “every crackpot idea that comes down the pike“
Not one.
Your characterization is way too broad and it kinda renders it useless.
When a striking event occurs it is bound to draw more attention in the media. The larger the public response, the greater number of POV’s. An important part of people’s view is to ask questions. It sounds like you feel that questioning peoples actions is wrong based on a measuring stick of your own making.
Oh really?
Well, I think you should know that to judge a particular type of questioning must be only in the eye of the beholder and therefore we need not take your failing grade that you give to those who do the questioning too seriously, do we?
"And when the dust had
“And when the dust had cleared, what was the response of the residents? They praised the invaders for their “bravery”.”
This doesn’t seem like simple questioning of an event to me.
And, like I said, it’s easy to judge from a distance and I’ve heard and read many similar comments around here about how Bostonians “gave” away their rights out of fear. Enough already.
I assure you I don’t have a problem with people asking questions, it’s when they get judgmental and/or assert their own ideas of conspiracy under the guise of “asking.” In my opinion many of these “questioners” seem to have a serious lack of respect for those who have to live through these events. That’s an opinion, not a judgment.
Most opinionated country in the world
…”it’s when they get judgmental and/or assert their own ideas of conspiracy under the guise of “asking.” In my opinion many of these “questioners” seem to have a serious lack of respect for those who have to live through these events. That’s an opinion, not a judgment.”
Rosa, this is the most opinionated country in the world. Of course American’s are judgemental and disrespectful !!!
Neither do they have to be right-up on top of an event to make comments.
And even when they do “witnesses” an event too often will report the same event in different ways.
Lighten up Rosa. Try not to be so prim and trim.
Half the fun of being opinionated is being right, of course, but we often are obnoxious, funny, serious, factual, skewered, praiseworthy, clever, stupid, da da da da…
This American likes it that way!!!!!!!
"Half the fun...." Fun? I
“Half the fun….”
Fun? I doubt any Bostonian would appreciate conjecture about what happened or criticism of how they behaved being described as fun.
Enuff said
the two different views that Chris Pratt and Lise...
Rosa, I think you would have made a good Crusader or Pilgrim, but, I’m sorry I can’t say that’s a compliment.
The best part of this little thread is that I think you are a perfect example of what Chris is communicating.
By being a caretaker arbiter of the Bostonians, you presume that they are homogenous. At no time did you give credence to the idea that not all Bostonians want your protection and not all of them would agree with you. In fact, it’s likely that a healthy percentage of them agreed with tomaidh’s comment.
But that’s outside of your narrow monolithic view.
People live in a variable world and not all Bostonians will fit your pattern or tomaidh’s.
But that’s the two different views that Chris and Lise carry in their comments here, and I guess that should be counted for something in your favor.
Fear of freedom
What really got me in this post was the last paragraph:
“We have all heard the expression, “listen to both sides and the truth probably resides somewhere in the middle”. Right now, there are no “both” sides only one – one viewpoint. What words come to your mind when you live in a society that allows only one viewpoint?”
It hadn’t occurred to me before that when people with divergent viewpoints self-censor, it leaves only one option open, usually some form of the official story. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t lots of divergent opinions out there, but unless you’re a wild haired blogger or other committed activist, it’s very easy to leave the speaking out or even speaking at all to others, especially when it feels risky to do so. Freedom is nice but actually exerting that freedom can be scary….
But in answer to the question posed, a society where only one viewpoint is tolerated is usually regarded as something like communist Russia or other repressive state. As for finding middle ground, it’s true that without two points, there is no middle.
balderdash
The writer of this post here sets up a straw dog, “mainstream media”, so that he can easily tear it down. It’s his own critical thinking skills that need developing. This course load that is being described describing sounds more like a one-stop shop for paranoia 101 than a course that might help build intellectual skills.
There is this growing use of the term “mainstream media” that seems used to suggest a vast one-sided blindedness (if not corruption) in every single published print newspaper or every single broadcast network. And then of course if you poke any one person at that they will quickly point out the glowing exceptions, exceptions that depend on their political point of view. Amy Goodman on the left, perhaps Bill O’Reilly on the Right.
It’s all tiresome nonsense to me particularly when this term was spawned by one of the most unintellectual, anti-intellectual politicians of modern times, Sarah Palin. Although I suppose I shouldn’t even give her that much credit. I’m learning from this post that the mainstream media has been the mainstream media for exactly 12 years, so that would put the date before Palin.
This sort of kneejerk term is not simply intellectually lazy, it is an inaccurate, dishonest generalization. And it is worrisome to me to see a call to use it as a valid way of looking at media in the schools. Apparently teaching vague generalizations like that is more important that simply helping any one student to develop an intellectual curiousity for whatever is in front of their nose. Because to debase a whole working, and, mostly, professional class as “mainstream” tells a student to suspect everything. That isn’t critical thinking skills. That’s paranoia.
It is one thing to look back at history and discover that day to day journalists that follow their nose didn’t get a couple of facts straight; or to find that investigative journalists working on a longer time frame missed something. But it’s a short skip from that to dismissing the Washington Post as “liberal” or dismissing Fox as “conservative”. And then another easy jump to put a pox on all their houses and dismiss them, one and all, as “mainstream media”. What problem does that solve exactly?
Back in the sixties, there arose quite alot of alternative sources of information, and where are they now? For the most part, bankrupt and gone, but others were swallowed up by larger companies that saw value in what they were doing. OR, more importantly, reporters of such newspapers or community radio went on to bigger things. (I know not a few such people who started at my college station in the 70s that became investigative reporters at NPR and ATC.) You can keep adding alternatives till kingdom come, and you’ll keep adding sources that will not see the whole picture, or that will make a mistake, or that become what is viewed as “mainstream” 20 years hence by the next generation.
And as for history being rewritten, I am sorry but I fail to wear that tinfoil hat. Just because, in this country, we allow free speech and not a few idiots write a book about their wacko version of …anything… is not the problem. The problem is that in general, as a culture, we do not value the scholar or intellectual that tries to bring a new perspective to any one matter. That is to say, we tend to accept the sensational point of view as the conclusion. The multiple voices ARE there. They always have been. The question is how mainstream any one of them has a chance to become in a country that doesn’t always value scholarly work, or good journalism wherever it’s found. Or worse, politicizes the work and calls it The Truth and reaches for a beer, job well done. The search for truth (small t) is very hard work and not very sey. Just ask I.F. Stone.
Huh?
Is there an actual point to this?
Obviously you don’t like Chris Pratt’s post,
but if you’re rebutting his hypothesis, it is not clear on what grounds you are doing so.
You find his post paranoid – but you provide no evidence why he shouldn’t be paranoid.
To quote the old line, “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.”
You’re quibbling with his use of the phrase “mainstream media” or “msm” and assert that its use is growing. I feel as though it is fading – I heard the expression used much more frequently 5 or 6 years ago, but that’s neither here nor there.
The point is that with rare exceptions our worldwide (not just US) media are controlled by a very small handful of individuals. It is certainly not a new problem; the Nation magazine covered the issue of the shrinking media ownership pool regularly in the ’80’s when I was a Nation subscriber.
While I’m not sure I agree with Chris’s hypothesis that we’re afraid to speak out, let’s get specific.
I’ll pick one of Chris’s topics from his long list:
“Warren Commission Report and the Kennedy Assassination”
There are several problems for a marginally well informed citizen like me discussing this issue:
1) time.
It’ll be 50 years this November.
You could make the argument that JFK’s assassination opened the way for the Republican counter attack on the New Deal…but that’s way off most people’s computer (or Ipad or Smartphone) screens now.
Also time in that there isn’t much time for reading and researching the huge stockpile of information about this killing.
2) the evidence in the Warren report has been gone over so much. Do we really want to comb through all that again?
To answer my own question,
if discussing this could lead to a national conclusion that we don’t need the CIA as currently constituted, I could go for that. The idea that the CIA could decide to remove a president – or that it could be used by someone or a group of someones to do that is certainly enough cause to dismantle that agency.
It is also enough to inspire paranoia in my book (to get back to the paranoia issue).
3) I really don’t see fear or lack of freedom as an issue in discussing the assassination, but what new is there to say about it?
Maybe Chris would disagree, but I can’t imagine anybody wanting to dive into that old topic again.
I guess this November will provide an excuse for that – we’ll see if it happens.
The overall discussion problem as I see it is that there’s TOO much going on.
The average voter doesn’t have time to be informed, even marginally on half these issues – there’s 35 (by my count) in Chris’s list and it doesn’t even include the words “inside job” (kudos for that, man) or “global warming/climate crisis”.
Take for example the current surveillance debate.
Glenn Greenwald’s reporting on the Booz-Allen-Hamilton leaker in the Guardian newspaper has been spread all over the newsiverse.
Despite that, polls are finding people are neither very informed about the story nor does it bother them much.
That may ultimately prove the most fear inspiring issue of all.