19 ARABS WITH BOXCUTTERS, introduction: 20 YEARS OF LIES

If I could sum up in one sentence what I have learned over the last twenty years, since that fateful few hours when the events of what history has titled “9/11” unfolded,  it would be this:

Very little of what is proffered as “news” corresponds with the veracity of actual events.

 (By “news” I mean anything from any medium that advertises itself as such, or any venue which arrogates to itself such a designation.)

 ********************************

I have thus grown not merely avoidant, but positively antipathic, towards “news” outlets. To clarify, it may be that FACTS can be gleaned from a “news” account (though at the same time, maybe not), but IF such an admission can be allowed, it is only with this crucial caveat in mind: even actual facts are suspect when presented in the context of a general effort to obfuscate or propagandize, rather than tell the plain, unvarnished, unvanquished truth.

 

It is difficult for some to comprehend the extraordinary  degree of media mendacity on display. Many simply cannot fathom the extent to which complete and total lies-- or at best, certain truths marshalled in the service of higher level lies—are used to further what is commonly  called an “agenda” or a “narrative.” They remain unaware of the conglomerate of closely intersecting networks which work in tandem to promote utterly fabricated stories while completely ignoring totally authentic ones, and from this pastiche of active and aggressive dishonesty (that is, actual harassment and persecution of  whistleblowers and truth-tellers), together with the more common strategy of mendacity by omission (wherein whistleblowers and truth-tellers are simply dismissed or treated as if they didn’t exist), a rhetoric of relentless deceit predominates.

 

                  *********************

 

The issue of media mendacity is a broad and far-reaching topic, and the full effect of its repellent, putrescent cultural influence far exceeds the scope of this inquiry. I have elsewhere delved into this topic in greater detail, particularly when it comes to the so-called “debunkings” of legitimate allegations on the skimpiest of pretexts, for obvious propagandistic purposes which have nothing whatsoever to do with truth, and everything do with intentional obfuscation. These efforts should be easily seen through, as “debunkings” are very often remarkably threadbare and incredibly substance-free, consisting mostly of indulgences in ad hominem invective, yet the fact that they are broadcast by venues we have been trained to view as “credible” causes many to be convinced that they are trustworthy and ought to be believed, displaying the extent to which a sort of hypnotic spell has been cast upon the mind of much of the population.

 

So great, it would seem, is our desire to be accorded “social credit,” that people can be frightened into compliance by a calculated campaign of psychological torment-- in which the prospect of being expelled from polite society, and never again accorded respect, dignity, or any semblance of status-- is held in front of their faces, causing many to balk even when they know for a fact that the allegations being trumpeted are a whole tissue of lies. The truth does not matter to such people, in such cases; or at the very least, it doesn’t matter enough to face the threat of expulsion from polite society. It is, in effect, the equivalent of Hester Prynne being forced to wear the letter “A,” designating herself as an adulteress. Similarly, if some branch of the monolithic media mega-conglomerate  (that is, the six or so corporations with a stranglehold over what gets reported as “news”) wants to brand those who in some manner oppose the “narrative” or the “agenda” with their own scarlet letter, they will almost certainly succeed, NOT, to be sure, because they have truth on their side, but simply because of the latitude they are accorded as the psychic shock troops of the power elite.

 

 ******************

 

But there is another impediment to Americans, or Westerners generally, comprehending the full extent of their appointed media’s malicious mendacity.

 

To be sure, to most the word “media” does carry a negative connotation. People tend to hold media outlets responsible for irresponsible sensationalism (“if it bleeds, it leads”), and even, to a certain extent, of valuing agenda over truth in many cases. But at the same time, the “typical” American—if such a person can be said to exist—holds at most only a mitigated animus towards “Big Media.”

 

They are thus prevented from seeing  the worst aspect of the so-called “fourth estate,” that, contrary to its stated mandate to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” these institutions are naught but shills for the powerful, belching forth not “news” but sheer, unmitigated corporate- and state-approved propaganda.

 

**********************

 

Thus, we have the “official story” of 9/11, propped up by every “official” mouthpiece of the state and corporate media. Because (for now, anyway) there is more freedom in the contemporary West than there was in a totalitarian society like the Soviet Union, people are prevented from apprehending that our “news” is likely every bit as controlled as theirs, that what one reads in the pages of the New York Times is no doubt just as curated as anything put forth by Pravda during the Soviet era.

 

 

 

 Visit Andy Nowicki's author page , Amazon page and YouTube channel.