How many times has this happened to you? You are explaining to someone some of the rational, logical reasons why the official story of 9/11 can’t be true, perhaps explaining how WTC 7 fell in the exact manner of a professionally designed controlled demolition – a job which would typically take many weeks to prepare – when out comes a ‘thought stopper’ phrase like:
“That’s just a conspiracy theory!” or ...“Do you also believe in Big Foot and tin foil hats?” Or perhaps the person gets angry and/or agitated. Facts no longer matter at that point, and you may be able to tell that the person does not want to hear any more.
For example, the following response came from someone after they were given a 20-minute summary of 9/11 Truth information:
“I wouldn’t believe that, even if it were true!”
That reaction defies logic and reason. But it clearly illustrates just how irrational some peoples’ defenses can be. Here are a few more actual, sincere responses/defenses:
“As long as my wife and kids are fine and we can live the life style we have, the truth is, I don’t really care what happened on 9/11.”
“I would not want to live in a world where such a thing could be true.”
“You can’t expect someone to listen to information that turns their world upside down.”
“I’m not sure I want to know. If this is true, then up would be down and down would be up. My life would never be the same.”
“Look, I have to admit that I seriously resist anyone messing with my worldview!”
Why So Much Resistance to 9/11 Truth?
Such reactions are emotionally based. 9/11 is a very emotionally charged issue. The source of the denial and resistance is FEAR. The implications of 9/11 Truth are very scary for most people to take in. Given that a part of our government’s job description is keeping its citizens safe, it’s terrifying to consider that a secret rogue part of our government will do just the opposite – mass murder those very citizens, in order to advance dark agendas – like wars for corporate empire [JEWISH CRIMINAL CABAL EMPIRE]. To further consider that associated ‘secret teams’ would then put out in corporate [JEWISH CRIMINAL CABAL CONTROLLED] media cover-up stories, in the form of an elaborate fantasy story backed up with planted evidence, and to think that story was nearly universally accepted without question – this is the stuff of nightmares.
Then there is the difficulty of accepting the self-image shattering realization that we were duped by such cover story lies. 9/11 Truth suggests a very uncomfortable and disturbing worldview, especially to those new to such concepts. The intensity of fear brought up by these vast implications causes defense mechanisms to take over our rational thought processes. Such denial most often overrides rationality.
What’s a 9/11 Truth Activist To Do?
How can we overcome such powerful denial? What knowledge about these emotional barriers can empower us to be more effective in reaching larger numbers of our fellow citizens?
Start out by asking questions to find out what the person you are addressing currently thinks and feels about the 9/11 Truth message. Adjust your approach based on what you hear. Based on their responses, reach out and connect though empathy, to express to them an understanding of their difficult position. It’s not that hard to do – after all, most of us went through a similar process of conversion at some point, when we were in denial and uninformed about 9/11. Let them know about your own doubts, how you had a difficult time believing that the official story was false. Explain how upsetting it was for you to consider the alternative – that of very inconvenient truths. Even for those of us who were not upset by the idea of 9/11 being an inside job, there was often a difficulty in wrapping our heads around the enormity of it all. Talk about your own difficulties in rejecting the official story.
Reasons for Resistance to the Truth
There are a number of valid reasons why many of us resist the truth of 9/11. What follows are some major ones.
A. The Big Lie: I’ll start with the ‘Big Lie’ because it was the main barrier that kept me from fully accepting the truth of 9/11 as I was researching it in the weeks after the event. The sheer audacity of pulling off something so outrageous in broad daylight, thinking they would get away with it, and the large scale of it all kept me doubting for weeks. My turning point was learning about what really happened at Pearl Harbor – the many warnings that were ignored, the Japanese secret codes that the US had broken, etc. This new understanding, that the attack on Pearl Harbor was clearly allowed to happen, was what finally had me fully accept 9/11 Truth. The comparable number that were deliberately allowed to be mass murdered, the scale of the event, the audacity of it all, and the 60 years of largely successful cover-ups all showed me that a Big Lie had happened before, and worked to fool most of the public, and not all that long ago. It was only later I discovered these quotes:
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” ~ J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI
“The masses indulge in petty falsehoods every day, but it would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths. ... The bigger the lie, therefore, the likelier it is to be believed.” ~ Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
B. Major Paradigm Shift: Questioning the official story of 9/11 threatens the foundations of our society, or at least seems to. It challenges our fellow citizens’ belief systems regarding the nature of our government, and even the very nature of our nation. Such questioning is far more profound than, say, questioning a war. Accepting the truth of 9/11 is, for many, a major paradigm shift, often an inverting of their worldview. Such shifts risk a period of chaos and uncertainty, which many find disturbing and scary.
C. Blind Nationalist Faith: 9/11 Truth is a confrontation with the self-image that many Americans have – of their country and of themselves. The self-image Americans have been sold though our school systems and media is that we are the exceptional nation, the good guys wearing the white hats, the bringers of democracy and freedom. Such nationalistic faith can exceed religious faith in its dogmatic blindness. Dr. David Ray Griffin addresses these issues in an edited video titled “9/11 and Nationalist Faith.” A DVD version of the full presentation including Q & A can be found here.
D. Projecting Parental Duties on Authorities: In his book As If We Were Grownups, author Jeff Golden’s thoughtful assertion is that,
“We consistently elect [political] candidates who tell us what children would want to hear. Children want to hear that everything is okay, that little is required of them, that they can go out and play or watch TV, and that they’ll be taken care of and protected. In exchange, they are expected to be seen and not heard, to pay their taxes, and to not question the authorities.”
E. Admission of Gullibility: Anyone we are introducing 9/11 Truth to now has believed the official story for years. To accept 9/11 Truth they have to admit they were duped, deceived, and manipulated for all that time. That brings up questions of gullibility, naiveté, lack of perceptiveness, obliviousness, etc. Most of us have resistance to admitting such shortcomings. Astronomer Carl Sagan sums it up nicely:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge – even to ourselves – that we’ve been so credulous [i.e. gullible].”
F. The Rabbit Hole Effect – Wider Implications: To believe 9/11 Truth, one also has to believe many other difficult truths, such as:
- Parts of our corporate media [Jewish Cabal Controlled Media] must be incredibly corrupt and/or controlled to be complicit in such a massive cover-up.
- There must be a powerful, secret, hidden part of our overt government that is capable of planning and executing such a horrible and unthinkable act.
- Some of our leaders are more corrupt and malicious than most of us would want to believe. But one has only to remember the words of philosopher and statesman, Edmund Burke, to understand how corruption tends to grow especially in good times:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
G. Apathy and Complacency: Radio talk show host, Mike Rivero, sheds some light on why so many people are apathetic and complacent about changing their beliefs:
“Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.”
H. PTSD – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: 9/11 was first and foremost a Psyop, shorthand for a Psychological Operation. It is a term used by secret services like the CIA to describe a class of operations that are intended to manipulate the emotions of populations; it is a form of mind control.
The specific intention of 9/11 was to terrorize the American people into supporting the so-called “war on terror,” [Initiation of the ODED YINON PLAN] which is a replacement for the cold war’s “war on communism.” It’s a blank check for the US government and the American military-industrial-complex to attack anyone, anywhere they want, anytime they want – to support the empire.
The psy-op initially worked for a vast majority of US citizens, and for many, it is still working.
The terror that so many felt during and after the attacks left many people, particularly in New York City, with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – PTSD. To revisit those events, as is necessary to expose the truth of 9/11, can retrigger that stress and add to the other discomforts that are already intrinsic to that same truth we are revealing. The desire to minimize re-experiencing that trauma causes people to back away. We need to go easy on those who exhibit such stress.
I. Lack of Knowledge of Historical Parallels or Patterns: While not strictly an emotional issue, the ignorance most people have about the many false flag events used to justify wars throughout history also has a psychological component. Our ability to conceptualize new information is dependent on having a frame of reference, that is, already knowing something similar, in order to be able to anchor a new thought. The lack of such historical reference points, therefore, can be yet another source of resistance. This blockage is perhaps the easiest one to deal with – by educating people about the long history of false flag events used for triggering wars.
The Awakening Will Take Time
These are many of the major reasons why so many people resist 9/11 Truth. By understanding them, we can meet people
with empathy and understanding, and have more patience with them. Patience is so important because for most, awakening to
9/11 Truth is a gradual process, often taking weeks, months, or even years. In light of that, try to be sensitive when presenting
evidence, so as to notice when a person is ‘full’ – when they have heard enough for the moment, and need
space to digest and absorb the new, and often, disturbing concepts.
The good news is that with all that is happening now in our post-9/11 world,
particularly with the public knowledge of the lies about WMDs in Iraq, and the lies about Saddam Hussein being linked to
al Qaeda and 9/11, due to those lies that led us into war with Iraq being exposed as lies, people’s minds are opening
wider every day. More and more people are waking up to the degree of corruption and deception that is routine in our government.
Every day they learn more about how the corporate media [JEWISH CRIMINAL CABAL CONTROLLED MEDIA] have been
complicit in lies (“fake news) and cover-ups. Trust in such corporate and governmental institutions is now at an all
time low, and dropping. This makes people far more open to the 9/11 Truth message. In a very real sense, our job is getting
The truth alone is not enough, but the truth plus strategic thinking, planning and educating is enough to convince
most fence-sitters. As David Hutton, author of The Change Agents’ Handbook, says: “You do not have to spend a lot of time and effort on those who strongly resist change. You only
have to help and protect those who want to change.” Understanding the various emotional obstacles is
an essential part of such a strategy.
It’s been about seventeen years for some of us who have been working to expose the truth about 9/11. We have made great progress, but still have far to go. We will continue to progress as long as we work smart and don’t give up. The truth will continue being revealed, and the resultant awakening will lead to the kind of deep changes that are so necessary to create a more positive future.
Prior Knowledge of State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADS) and Deep Politics
© by Frances T. Shure, 2014
Editor's Note: Frances Shure, M.A., L.P.C., has performed an in-depth analysis addressing a key issue of our time: "Why Do Good People Become Silent — or Worse — About 9/11?" The resulting essay, being presented here as a series, is a synthesis of both academic research and clinical observations.
In answering the question in the title of this essay, the November segment — Signal Detection Theory — examined how the "signal" of 9/11 Truth can be drowned out by excessive "noise" that comes from our information-overloaded world, our prior beliefs, and our psychological state of being.
Here, in the December installment, we continue Ms. Shure's analysis with Part 13: Prior Knowledge of State Crimes Against Democracy and Deep Politics, which explores how our prior knowledge of state crimes by governments, as well as our knowledge of the deep state — as opposed to the visible public state in which we participate as citizens — affects our reception of evidence that indicates we have been lied to about 9/11.
People with prior knowledge of corporate and governmental malfeasance, but especially of State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs), have an increased capacity to accept evidence that contradicts the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
What are SCADs, and how do they differ from other political crimes? Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University, coined the term “state crimes against democracy” to distinguish them as the illegal or extralegal actions of public officials or elites who manipulate or subvert democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty. In other words, State Crimes Against Democracy are high crimes that attack not only people, but democracy itself.
Therefore, according to deHaven-Smith, "election tampering, political assassinations, voter fraud, government graft, non-governmental rogue operations, state counter-democratic actions, and corporate collusion with extralegal initiatives can be classified as SCADs."
Before September 11, 2001, each of us had varying degrees of knowledge about political intrigue. If, for example, we had already read professor Peter Dale Scott’s Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, or if we already had a solid understanding of known SCADs, such as Iran-Contra, the Gulf of Tonkin, and especially Operation Northwoods, then we likely had minimal resistance to the evidence pointing to 9/11 as a false-flag operation. On the other hand, those of us who possessed none of this knowledge before 9/11 would have been challenged by a huge paradigm shift when we awoke to the facts that contradicted the official storyline regarding that terrible day.
Like State Crimes Against Democracy, the term "deep politics" is invaluable in that it helps us wrap our minds around the concept that there is a "public state" and a "deep state." The public state consists of the democratic republic that we are taught is our system of government and in which we dutifully participate as citizens. The deep state, on the other hand, is composed of the realpolitik powers and behind-the-scenes decisions about which ordinary citizens are unaware.
Scott defines "deep state" more specifically:
Those parts of the government responding to . . . [the top 1% of wealth holders] influence I call the "deep state" (if covert) or "security state" (if military). Both represent top-down or closed power, as opposed to the open power of the public state . . . that represents the people as a whole. . . . The deep state's secret top-down powers have become a major threat to democracy.
Unless we have had a prior understanding of the deep state, we will likely dismiss the evidence presented by 9/11 skeptics. Peter Dale Scott's invaluable book, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, offers us this sorely needed historical context. In it, he writes:
In one sense, 9/11 is an event without precedent, and one that threatens to move America beyond the age of public politics to a new era in which power, more than ever before, is administered downward from above. But at the same time, 9/11 must be seen as a culmination of trends developing through a half century: toward secret top-down decision making by small cabals, toward the militarization of law enforcement, toward plans for the sequestering of those who dissent, toward government off-the-books operations, transactions, and assets, and toward governance by those [the 1%] who pay for political parties rather than those who participate in them.
Without some knowledge of this historical context, our deepest beliefs about our government and our democratic republic will be profoundly challenged when we first encounter evidence that refutes the official account of 9/11. The same is true when we encounter reports of past governmental treacheries, such as the deception that led to the Pearl Harbor attacks; Operation Northwoods — the 1962 false-flag plot designed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to commit acts of terrorism in American cities and elsewhere to justify an invasion of Cuba, which was rejected by President Kennedy; Operation Mockingbird, a CIA plot to control the media, instigated after World War II; the atrocities of Project MK-ULTRA experiments on unaware citizens; and the 1933 plot by wealthy businessmen to overthrow the U.S. government and create a fascist state, as Major General Smedley Butler testified to in a 1934 congressional hearing.
"The deep state's secret top-down powers have become a major threat to democracy.
~ Peter Dale Scott
With rare exception, our educational system avoids the history of these and other betrayals by our government and/or elite interests, thus creating a naïve and credulous population, willing to accept passively the "reality" portrayed by the CIA-and-corporate-controlled media.
In fact, as Florida professor Lance deHaven-Smith informs us in his groundbreaking book, Conspiracy Theory in America, we have been conditioned to recoil psychologically from such "conspiracy theories," even when these theories are documented and credible.
Our current inability to look unselfconsciously at the evidence pointing to an official conspiracy behind 9/11 can be traced to a highly successful CIA operation. In 1967, four years after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, the CIA became concerned with the growing number of newspaper articles and books reporting on evidence in the Warren Commission report itself that contradicted the lone-gunman and single-bullet theories. Public opinion polls were beginning to indicate that a plurality of Americans did not fully accept the Commission's report, and the integrity of democracy in the U.S. was coming into question.
The CIA responded to this growing crisis by sending a secret dispatch — memo 1035-960 — to CIA agents worldwide. This directive instructed these agents to contact journalists and opinion leaders in their locales and ask for their assistance in countering the influence of "conspiracy theorists" who were publishing "conspiracy theories" that blamed top leaders in the U.S. for Kennedy's death.
Skeptics of the official 9/11 account have heard ad nauseam the retort, "I cannot believe that a conspiracy of this magnitude could be true because people can't keep secrets — someone would have talked!"
This belief comes directly from one of the talking points of the memo: "Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested [by "conspiracy theorists"] would be impossible to conceal in the United States. . . ."
This now-ingrained belief in our society has successfully deterred many people from seriously considering the 9/11 evidence that contradicts the official story. As explained in Part 8 on brain research, it is these strong beliefs that may keep us from even considering the compelling evidence that 9/11 skeptics present.
Fortunately, memo 1035-960 was declassified through a Freedom of Information Act in 1976 and was released in full in 1998. Since 1967, the derogatory nature of the conspiracy meme skyrocketed in the press, so that anyone who had the audacity to question the official storyline of a significant event was viewed by most Americans as deranged or unstable. These CIA talking points are used to this day by ill-informed journalists and citizens to avoid seriously looking at facts and evidence that contradict any official story, including the story we were told about 9/11.
I was one who was thoroughly conditioned. A few years before 9/11, I responded, as if on cue, to a friend who was suspicious of the government's unlikely account of an event (it may have been the Oklahoma City bombing) with a glib "Oh! I don't believe in conspiracy theories!" But just weeks after 9/11, I began to open my eyes to the crystal-clear evidence of a conspiracy, which was presented to me by the then-nascent 9/11 Truth Movement. After reading a book on the subject in the summer of 2002, I was completely cured of my old conditioning!
One would ideally expect academics to do research and think critically — and to encourage students to do the same — in order to determine whether the government's theory or an alternative theory is the more substantiated and correct one. Sadly, most professors disdain and even censor information that points to as-yet-unproven conspiracies.
Fortunately, though, social psychologists have taken the lead in reversing this censoring trend. They recognize that the term "state crimes against democracy" encourages inquiry, unlike the meme "conspiracy theory," which, because of our knee-jerk conditioning, encourages censorship.
Once social psychologists begin inquiring into suspected SCADs, they then will be able to identify "patterns in SCAD victims, tactics, timing, those who benefit, and other SCAD characteristics," writes deHaven-Smith. The social psychologists who systematically examine suspected SCADs — as they would examine any other social phenomena — will better understand deep politics. This scholarly examination will then lead them to identify our system's institutional vulnerabilities. Armed with such studies, they will be able to recommend that protections be established or strengthened.
Without scientific inquiry by scholars and other concerned citizens into State Crimes Against Democracy, we are left floundering in a sea of competing theories, believing that we will never know the truth, so why even try. As deHaven-Smith observes:
When suspicious incidents occur that alter the nation's objectives, disrupt presidential elections, provoke military action, or otherwise affect the national agenda, Americans tend to accept the self-serving accounts of public officials, seldom considering the possibility that such incidents might have been initiated or facilitated by the officials themselves. The role and function of the universally understood concept of "agent provocateur" is grossly neglected in the idiom of American political discourse. This mass gullibility, which itself invites SCADs, is unlikely to change until SCAD detection and prosecution are improved.
The word "corruption" is far too weak to describe the condition in which we find ourselves in the U.S. today. For example, there has been a merger of corporate interests within segments of our government—such as the revolving door of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other federal agencies designed to protect citizens. As a result, officials no longer even bother to adhere to the ethical standard of recusing themselves from a position of power or influence when faced with a conflict of interest.
Moreover, our government representatives have accepted a system of legalized bribery in the form of massive corporate campaign contributions. Thus we have, as investigative journalist Greg Palast [actually a Jewish gatekeeper and distratction specialist] satirically puts it, "the best democracy money can buy."
Add this to the stunning fact that, to date, we have yet to witness a real criminal investigation into the attacks of 9/11, and we clearly see that the United States of America has become a culture of unaccountability. More precisely, there is wholesale impunity for the elite operatives of the deep state, but not for the rest of us.
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind's report of a conversation with a former George W. Bush senior advisor gives us an idea of the relative invulnerability of these deep-state operatives. In his New York Times article, "Faith, Certainty, and the Presidency of George W. Bush," Suskind wrote:
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
With blatant arrogance and remarkable clarity, this senior advisor was outlining his participation in the deep state. In fact, the operatives of the deep state, whether they are government officials or the business and banking elite of our country or their proxies, are the ones who would necessarily be the perpetrators of State Crimes Against Democracy — the aforementioned historical SCADs as well as 9/11 and the accompanying anthrax attacks in 2001. Hand in hand, piece by piece, they destroy the representative democracy that we inherited from our forefathers, who, by the way, predicted and adamantly warned us against such treachery.
"This mass gullibility, which itself invites SCADs, is unlikely to change until SCAD detection and prosecution are improved."
~ Lance DeHaven-Smith
Another aspect contributing to the destruction of our republic is the common citizen's ignorance (willful or not) and/or acquiescence (witting or not). This is where the importance of the 9/11 Truth Movement and other movements working toward transparency and democracy can make a significant impact. There are numerous active groups around the world whose members have become informed on various issues. They work diligently to educate and transform societies so that all peoples may have health, prosperity, sovereignty, a sustainable environment, and accurate information for making informed decisions.
How does our knowledge of SCADs and of deep politics influence how we approach individuals with the evidence that indicates our government is lying to us about 9/11?
Well, this essay has established that a person's prior knowledge of high political crimes is key to whether or not they remain silent — or worse — about 9/11. Thus, we 9/11 Truth activists will be more successful in convincing people to accept our information if we first ascertain what our listeners already know. Then we can start a dialogue with them, based on how much knowledge they currently possess, rather than where we want their level of knowledge to be.
Clearly, prior knowledge of State Crimes Against Democracy and an understanding of deep politics are empowering assets that help us detect signals warning us that we are, once again, being deceived. However, as we shall see in the following section, detecting such signals may weaken some people, not empower them. This may be because they are the victims of "learned helplessness."