TRUTH and HISTORY

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.                   

            William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)

History, it has been said, is written by the victors. It trumpets our nation’s excellence.  It glosses over the atrocities war often entails because they were, self-evidently, committed against our inferiors.  Nor are the disasters of Gallipoli, or the Holocaust, exceptions to this rule, because each was also employed to unify a nation, which suggests simply that history, regardless of what it records, is ethnocentric. One way or another it makes us feel good about our membership of a particular community.  In many ways it defines for us what is good. (I've explored this in greater detail here.)

Perhaps this helps explain our revulsion at certain recent attempts at revisionist history. Like Holocaust denial, we recoil from conspiracy theories because they invariably attack our foundational belief in ourselves as representatives of the true and the good. Instead, they invite us to feel alternately ashamed of, and angry at the very authorities we have little choice but to trust.  In a word, they make us profoundly uncomfortable. One of the common early accusations levelled at 9/11 ‘truthers’, for example, was that they were unpatriotic. 

But now a vast upheaval is under way in the West, involving nothing less than a wholesale reappraisal of the morals and motives of our leaders, and the media through which they reach out to us.  A largely internet-driven, no-holds-barred, unflattering reinterpretation of many recent, momentous events is gaining traction in the popular mind.  The Pearl Harbor attack (1941), the Roswell incident (1947), the assassination of JFK (1963), the Gulf of Tonkin incident (1964), the death of Princess Diana(1997), the 9/11 event (2001), the invasion of Iraq (2003), the 7/7 bombings in London (2005); also the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City(1995), the TWA Flight 800 disaster (1996), and the Sandy Hook massacre (2012): for each and every one of these seminal events the government explanation has been investigated, and, in every case, roundly rejected by intelligent people who, had they agreed with the government version, would have been hailed as reliable sources of information. That they came to the opposite conclusion labels them conspiracy theorists, madmen, and traitors, because our view of ourselves, supported by our view of history, is that we are the good guys and only nutters and bad people would do wicked things like this, or believe in such absurdities. 

He who controls the past controls the future.  The cumulative disinformation which these and other media falsifications represent is creating a serious distortion in our apprehension of what is true; a kind of truth deficit. If we ignore the mounting evidence that things are not as they should be in our received historical narrative, we are in great danger of being blindsided by what is to come. False flag events, many of stunning audacity, are becoming the order of the day. Where is this leading?  

Many will argue that politics today is beyond our control, and under such circumstances burying your head in the sand is a rational response if it preserves your peace of mind. Hard to disagree with that. But are we really to envy those Jews, for example, who ‘chose’ to remain in the Berlin of the late 1930ies, despite the ominous rumblings of advancing Nazism? Is it choice we are defending, or inertia? Fortune favors the prepared.

Here's a news clip from Russia Today (RT) relating to an incident that occurred in September, 2013.  It reveals, once again, the on-going collusion between our supposedly 'objective', 'truthful' media - in this case the once venerable BBC - and those who are shaping our perception of the world events they claim to report. It is evidence like this that is compromising the credibility of the mainstream media, leading to a catastrophic decline in their viewers and readership. We are losing our collective faith in the historical narrative being laid out for us by the traditional news apparatus, and, by extension, our leaders. People are simply tuning out. The term 'fake news' has been seen to apply, not to the 'alt media' at which it was originally aimed, but more devastatingly to our organs of authority, who have quietly dropped the phrase.  

The BBC faking news? What the hell is going on? We have just been exposed to toxic news about a further Syrian chemical attack. Who is now to say who caused that atrocity, or even that it occurred at all? This is a very deep rabbit hole. I intend to explore some of its implications further over the next couple of weeks, culminating hopefully in a new and much-anticipated movie, as yet unreleased, which I shall download on or around 25 April, and somehow circulate or provide links to (it may only be available as a paid-for download) for anyone interested. 

Pablo