November 23, 2015
By Barrie Zwicker (Special to Truth and Shadows)
9/11, Big Lies, Government Manipulation, Good People, and Silence. These are the key words and phrases in the 19th installment of psychotherapist Fran Shure’s insightful series of essays entitled “Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11?”
Truth and Shadows is critiquing this installment of the series for now and will review the entire series when it is published in book form by AE911Truth in mid-2016. The relevancy of Part 19 for this site and the increasingly unstable and dangerous state of the world are the reasons for posting this now.
Out of the gate on page 2 Shure boldly taunts the meme “The first person who mentions Hitler loses.” This is also known as the reductio ad Hitlerum rule.1 She wades fearlessly into Hitler and his Nazi regime, citing many chilling parallels between Hitler and the Deep State a.k.a. the American Empire. In fact this constitutes much of the essay.
If anything, Shure may downplay the monstrousness of today’s American Empire by comparing it with Hitler’s Third Reich. True, Hitler’s a better parallel for today’s world situation than is, for instance, Genghis Khan. But in neither Genghis Khan’s time nor Hitler’s was survival of all life on Earth on the line as it is today. Hitler lacked The Bomb (not for lack of trying) and perpetrated his barbarism pre-global climate change. His crimes could not threaten all life on Earth.
Today’s perpetrators have far more potential blood and radioactive moonscape on their hands than Hitler could have dreamed of. And not potential blood only. According to ex-CIA agent John Stockwell, the CIA alone has been responsible for more than 6 million deaths, a figure arrived at by adding up the tolls of the Vietnam War, wars in Latin America, and so on.
Also falling under the heading of paradox is the fact that Hitler’s name is closely associated with the concept of the “Big Lie,” often capitalized. He should, however, be equally or better known as a supreme practitioner of the false flag operation. Even his biggest lies uttered during his gershstunken rants at massive Nazi rallies could not hold a candle to the power of his burning down the Reichstag and blaming it on “the communists.” The high profile of his spoken lies and the low profile, by comparison, of his history-changing “propaganda of the act” deceptions is yet another reflection of the sorry fact that false flag ops are history’s deadliest and least known deceits.
The Reichstag fire iconic false flag op really was a game changer. It prepared the collective consciousness of Germans to believe all spoken lies Hitler and his minions flaunted. Without the Reichstag inferno, Hitler’s speeches would have been less incendiary.
Further condemning today’s psychopathic power holders is that they have the example of Hitler from which to learn, so room for the “I didn’t know” and the “I was just following orders” evasions is very small. Once you know a minimum about Hitler and all he stood for, all the Big Lies he told and all the false flag operations he carried out, you basically possess the education you need to understand the present Empire, how it works, what its intentions are and—ominously—how it will work out unless there’s some kind of uprising to prevent the worst. The key words in the titles of Ian Kershaw’s magnificent two-volume set on Hitler2 summarize the lives of empires. They start with hubris and end with nemesis.
One significant aspect of Hitlerism that is all but lost—and that is highly relevant today—is that his genocidal enmity was not exclusively directed at Jews. His racism extended to Gypsies and especially to Slavs. His master race thesis had no time for the disabled. As important or more, Nazi corporatist-fascist ideology was firmly anti-Communist. There was a dreadful overlap between corporate fascism and racism in that Slavs comprised the core of the population of the former Soviet Union. Further many Jews then living in the USSR were Communists. Hitler managed to exterminate more than 20 million communists or communistic Soviet citizens. All were certainly patriotic. Far more Soviets died on the Eastern Front than died in the Holocaust.
It must be added that following World War II “the West” continued Hitler’s anti-Communist crusade minus the anti-Semitism. You had McCarthyism. You had 1 million communist Indonesians slaughtered with the close oversight of Henry Kissinger. The cover for this pro-fascist corporate-military genocide was the cooked-up Cold War. Cooked up because at the end of World War II the USSR, with its 20 million+ dead and largely destroyed infrastructure, was in no position to threaten “the West” militarily. It also didn’t want to; it offered co-existence. “The West”—the USA especially emerging almost unscathed—was having none of that.
The global monopoly capitalist order had to destroy any competing system. Anti-Communism thus sufficed as a de facto religion imposed on all “Western” peoples until “Communism fell.” (It was pushed.) Then a new global conflict had to be fomented by Hitler’s heirs in Washington, London, Ottawa and other “Western” capitals. Thus the new Manichean conflict, the “global war on terror,” launched by the terror fraud of 9/11.
Shure goes wider and deeper than simply blaming the powers-that-be, past or present. A humanist, a healer and a thoughtful student of history, she uses 9/11Truth as her acid test. She writes:
Until the majority of us are educated regarding these tactics, we will continue to be hoodwinked in heinous ways. And until most of us understand our own proclivities to yield to power through our silence when we suspect or detect a big lie, we will continue to be those good people who, because of our fear, cooperate with the authorities with monstrous results.
Shure’s use of “the majority of us” and “the most of us” is to be lauded. She avoids for the most part the simple—and highly problematic—“us.” References to just “us” or “we” almost always mislead in at least two ways. One is lack of exactitude. Who exactly is “us” or “we?” Some of us (“us” here justified because it’s modified by “some”) should not be tarred with a brush that blackens all of us. Misuse of “we” and “us” also can be taken as offering a sort of cover. “Hey, we’re just mingling with the crowd here, so what I’m thinking or doing can’t be so bad, can it?” This is a cover that Shure rightly decries. It’s a cover unavailable when we (here meaning all of us) use the first pronoun “I.” I have then to take ownership of my thoughts and actions.
This is not “mere semantics.” The constant throwing around of “we” and “us” by newspaper columnists, for instance, is usually both propagandistic and arrogant. I find myself muttering “Speak for yourself, Bub.” Then there’s Kevin Barrett’s recently-published anti-“we” anthology We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo! Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11.
By page 9 Shure turns for a time to more personal psychology, relying on clinical observations as well as academic research. It’s a relatively justified ground for discussing unmodified “we,” “us” and “our,” because there are, God knows, such phenomena as human proclivities. It worries me, for instance, to think that we’re not wired for survival—as a species. Our emotions frequently squeeze out our rational capabilities.
Shure’s justified references to particular psychological experiments that have been replicated are both sobering and hopeful. Sobering because they help explain how the general run of us can be manipulated into going off to war, for instance, but hopeful because they explain how to avoid being manipulated.
She covers projection, scapegoating and healing, which easily bring to mind the current officially-sanctioned demonization of all Muslims, even though the “authorities,” including the media, will try to refute this by constantly using the terms “radical Muslims” or “Muslim extremists” or “jihadists” and so on. But the focus is clear. It’s not on Christians, Jews, Hindus, Latter Day Saints, Buddhists or Celtic polytheists. It’s really all Muslims. A few Jews have seen the parallels of Muslim baiting with the brainwashing that preceded the Holocaust.
Throughout she makes sure to position these proclivities within a spectrum. For instance, she writes:
At the far end of the continuum is what is known as scapegoating, a virulent form of projection marked by a hypercritical tendency, irrational blame, and even the malevolent wish to banish another from one’s group.
She brings us, her readers, back to ourselves, writing:
To varying degrees, virtually all of us carry repressed trauma from our infancy and childhood. Therefore, nearly all of us have a shadow side that, if we recognized it, we would abhor as undesirable and unacceptable. Consequently, most of us are liable to project our unwanted characteristics onto others.
There it is, “virtually all of us.” Careful use of language—so important. Looking in the mirror, taking stock, engaging in honest and thoughtful reflection and introspection, cannot help but make pretty well anyone capable of becoming more whole, “more human.”
There’s a trap here, however, one that “good people” all too frequently lay unknowingly for themselves and others. It’s encapsulated in the statement: “We’re all human, after all.” Once again, we—and I mean all of us—must watch our language. Because there are among us—all of us—some who lack certain essential qualities generally accepted as defining our humanity.
These qualities include the capacity to feel empathy, guilt and remorse. They include caring for others, not always putting one’s self ahead of all others. They include refraining from serial lying, bullying, bribing. They include not seeking power for power’s sake.
Failing on these counts are those among us whose cerebral wiring is faulty on these and other scores to one extent or another. Unfortunately, members of this sub-group, psychopaths, are also extra-charming and of above average intelligence. So they tend to end up being the “leaders,” the rulers with more power than most of the rest of us. Financial, political, military, covert. And the skill set that gets them to the top, even if they’re in the shadows, is the same skill set they keep practicing when they arrive at the top.
Such a sub-group without a twinge of conscience can decide to “sacrifice” a couple of thousand of their countrymen for “larger” purposes, one of which would be to seek even more power and wealth. Even a cursory look back over history reveals that not only can “leaders” do that. It shows that they routinely and repeatedly do that.
Shure, toward the end of Part 19, knits together Hitler’s Naziism and the 9/11 big lie:
Do not these revelations about the Nazis and Hitler’s strategy strike a chord with us in the aftermath of the events of 9/11? Specifically, is it not plausible to consider that in order to persuade Americans to go to war, people in power who have little, if any, social conscience would employ the time-tested tactic of a false flag operation to establish trauma and fear in the public? Then, to advance their political agenda, would they not tell a big lie, keep it simple, and never deviate from the story that “19 Muslim Arabs attacked us on September 11, 2001, because they hate our freedoms?”
She quotes a modest analysis by yours truly and analyses of others to show how common and how monstrously deforming in history is the false flag phenomenon. Combining the academic, the historical and the personal she writes:
In considering the parallel of the bullies at the helm of the Nazi regime and the bullies who perpetrated 9/11, it becomes clear that these individuals have little conscience or capacity for empathy. It also becomes obvious that they know the psychology of the masses better than the masses know themselves — and sometimes better than most psychologists. Can we really blame German and American citizens, then, for buying into the big lie?
For those citizens who are truly innocent and deceived, the short answer is “No.” Most human beings have a conscience and feel empathy, so it is unfathomable to us that some humans do not have the same capacity. For the majority of us, it is especially incomprehensible that even some of our parental-figure officials, whom we greatly desire to trust, may have the treacherous ability to deceitfully murder our fellow citizens en masse in order to advance their own agenda.
To heed Shure, therefore “we” must invest time and effort to get wise to “ourselves” as well as get wise to the worst of the psychopathic minority, those who do not deserve to be included when “we” say: “We’re all human.”
I trust this critique will suggest that Shure’s book, when it is published, will be a key contribution to the understanding of how we got into the pickle we’re in, and to how we might get out of it.
1 This meme is actually a bastardization of a useful contribution to intelligent evidence-based discourse known as Godwin’s Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law). American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990 introduced his law “as an experiment in memetics” according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s entry concludes: “Godwin’s law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. ‘Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust,’ Godwin has written.”
That reductio ad Hitlerum rule certainly applies now Benjamin Netnyahu and to Avigdor Lieberman, who has ordered diplomats to distribute an old photograph of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the late Nazi-loving mufti of Jerusalem, sitting next to Hitler in 1941 Berlin. The idea is that world leaders will see the picture, think of Nazis, and let the Israeli foreign minister build apartments in East Jerusalem. Or something.
It’s true that the Mufti was an outrageous Nazi. It’s also true that he’s dead. The Palestinians of the West Bank are not Nazis. Lieberman is going to have to get used to the idea.
2 Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, Penguin 1999; Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, Penguin 2001