Friday, September 11, 2009


Too often, that which is now (at least in the world as we know it) judged to be not credible/incredible is based not on facts, but the purely emotional bias of political, religious and scientific beliefs (theories only on the latter, obviously not solidly-proven science). 9/11, today being the the 8th anniversary, is probably the best example ever. There's been no greater heads-in-the-sand factor of any issue that I can discern. In spite of the effectively countless facts and questions that don't comply with the official government-media line of most-reeking-ever bullshit about 9/11, including especially the basics of what real physics does and doesn't do, the majority of people (at least in the US) continue their infantile breath-holding and feet-stomping on the matter.

In a way it's understandable. Most people can't get their head around the notion of their own government having anything to do with a lie that huge. Someday the reasons behind both the crime itself and the beyond-astronomical ignorance among the masses concerning 9/11 will come out. Here's hoping it happens sooner than anyone will have expected.

As I mentioned some time ago, the definition of religion should be expanded to include the (at least currently dominantly) political as equally as the traditionally religious. It's all blind faith. It's all a house of cards built on a foundation of styrofoam. We need to knock down the flimsy, weak (overall) structure and build a fortress with megalithic stones in comparison... That's not saying literally everything political (as we know it) is the same as religion, nor that everything about every religion is false.

News flash: "That's just preposterous," in and of itself, isn't anything resembling a scientific or otherwise rational assertion. One always needs solid enough data to substantiate one's opinions... Well, in a civilized enough paradigm...

Second news flash: Whenever a new theory, hypothesis or whatever statement comes out that challenges whatever conventional view, if neither side is proven to be ironclad and airtight (if you will), it doesn't necessarily mean the new outlook is incorrect. It merely means further study and, what a concept, open minds are required for truly civilized and intelligent enough discussion, exploration.

I think it would be not only wonderful, but most appropriate, if a country other than the US would lead the way in a truth breakthrough on 9/11, or UFOs, close encounters, you name it. Since the US government has been the biggest psycho-punkass bully on the block concerning all things secretive since the advent of the National "Security" State in 1947, it very much needs and deserves a rather whopping lesson in humility, apparently necessarily through humiliation. Or however it happens, it sure would be great if credibility and objectivity can be mutually inclusive across the board, universally, for the first time ever. How much longer will the public be subjected to the "expert opinions" of horrendously biased, glorified snake oil peddlers?

No comments: