by Dee Mclachlan
To anyone not familiar with those articles, I will summarize: Jon Faine hosts ABC’s morning talkback radio, and chose “Fake News” as a discussion topic. I called in to complain that it is the mainstream media that are the experts in inflammatory, and also fake news. The discussion migrated to a clash over 9-11.
It seems nothing will change his mind — not even evidence: a “showbag” of books, videos, and articles, that I sent him several years ago. (Mr Faine also had a dramatic clash with Kevin Braken in 2010.)
When I email Mr Faine information on Building 7, he wrote:
“It is an insult to the dead to play with this”
It is distressing that the ABC and mainstream media prefer to collectively remain in denial — rather than review the scientific evidence of 9-11.
But why is this important?
The inability to review reality is leading us down a dangerous path. I think it disables a “survival switch” in our brains.
Let me start with Carl Sagan.
“You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.”
Sagan was also quoted as saying:
“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’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” [My emphasis]
It is fascinating that people with legal backgrounds (e.g. Mr Faine) abandon the value of facts to support a belief. As Frances T. Shure writes on ae911turth.org:
“Resistance to information that substantially challenges our worldview, we find, is the rule rather than the exception.
“…fear is the emotion that underlies most of the negative reactions toward 9/11 skeptics’ information: fear of receiving information that will turn our world upside down… fear we’ll discover that the world is not a safe place, fear that our reputation will be tarnished or that we’ll lose our jobs, fear of being shunned… or banished by friends and family, and fear of looking like a fool because we bought the official account so thoroughly.”
But most of us were initially fooled.
The First Theory is Accepted
We have discussed this many times before on Gumshoe: that when there is a epic event — like a false flag — a traumatised society usually accepts, as fact, the first seemingly logical explanation.
Those orchestrating these false flags know how our minds work, and with regard to 9-11, experts appeared on television almost immediately to provide the explanation — that Osama bin Laden was the perpetrator. That immediate theory, extracted from the slimist logic and not from evidence, became “official” — and any questioning of that official view was, and still is “stomped” on.
But there is another factor that is deluding us.
The Power of Story and the Hero – Bamboozling Us
I am going to digress here and discuss something familiar to me. I have been a screenwriter for over three decades — and have had to be fluent in the principals of story and character.
Most of our stories create a hero that has to go through of journey of learning, to overcoming increasingly difficult obstacles. The hero must eventually overcome their failings — and rise from their darkest hour to succeed (in the climax). By transforming him or herself, the hero then transforms the world (in a small or big way).
I believe most people are reactionary by nature — responding to happenings around them. True heroes are an exception — and thus stories and films with mostly fictional heroes give us hope that humans will always actively find solutions to their predicaments.
But I am not so sure.
As we have noted above, the most intelligent of us are unable to re-orientate our thinking to change our worldview. (It took me several months to feel normal again after having my worldview turned upside down by studying 9-11 and the many other false flags.)
Homo sapiens is an extremely inventive and ingenious species. But I think heroes in stories and films are TRICKING us into a false belief that we are able to survive as a species.
As Carl Sagan also said:
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.”
And the tragedy of humanity may be closer than we think.
Trag·e·dy in story terms is the consequence of a character being unable to overcome a tragic flaw, a moral weakness, or the inability to cope.
Well, Mr Faine (and all the other ABC presenters) proved to me that as a consequence of a tragic flaw, they are unable to change their worldview to then prosecute verbally those who are orchestrating the most egregious crimes on humanity.
If we are unable to identify those harming the people — what hope have we of being able to prosecute those destroying our only habitat — the planet.
Mary Maxwell wrote an excellent article on “The Pathology of the Leaders (and a Proposal for Amnesty)” where she outlines how the “Powers That Be are now deliberately wrecking the planet, the human habitat — land, waters, botanical species, and even the atmosphere” — and how they trick people from noticing who is really making the decisions.
Advert: XMAS SPECIAL FOUR Awaken Your Kids Books $25 (incl postage) in Australia $39 International
So let me continue with my discussion on the “survival switch.”
Man Lacks the “Survival Switch”
Man has been able to adapt so well to different environments on this magnificent planet. If one area becomes destroyed — we have adapted, moved on to take over another habitat, or adjusted the habitat.
Mary Maxwell writes:
“Mother Nature would help a deer that made a mistake in following a wrong behavior (abandonment of the water supply). Mother Nature would simply make the deer prioritize its survival…”
After millions of years of evolution, most animals seems to be able to find a balance within their habitat. If they don’t, the species becomes extinct.
But humans are different. We regulate our environment to suit us.
I am suggesting here that man has not yet fully evolved a “survival switch” in our DNA. Large corporations are destroying huge tracks of the planet, depleting oceans, polluting, destroying countries etc. — yet only a small percentage is troubled by this. Most of us don’t particularly bother. We still buy their shares, buy their products — and accept these high profile people and warmongering leaders as celebrities.
We don’t seem to have a survival switch that demands this to stop. Surely this is not a desirable species outcome? So I think our species is completely unprepared for possible destruction.
Evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond wrote about Easter Island in his book Collapse. He says the parallels between what happened on Easter Island and what is occurring today on the planet as a whole are “chillingly obvious.” (Though there are some scientists who prefer to blame the deforestation on rats.)
The Inability to Change Our Worldview
I think our species is in danger of extinction because we seem unable to change our worldview.
If we cannot investigate and look openly — without fear or favour — at what governments and leaders are doing to the planet, and doing to us, what hope have we in altering human behaviour? We seem to be lacking a survival switch to warn us and inform us — preferring to exist in delusion.
My two cents worth.