Absurdity and Hope

September 11, 2018

 

The article below was originally written by me as a comment on a posting at one of my favorite blogs: Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis. However, Mr. Lang did not think the piece fit for his comment section (or, I presume, any other part of his website). Well, C'est la vie-- I still highly recommend his blog. The link to the specific post it here: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/09/the-moment.html

 

 

 

 

It seems that the ability of people to recognize an absurdity is inversely correlated to the degree to which that absurdity is of importance.

 

Absurdities which pertain to what a person considers to be trifles are easily recognized, for doing so places no responsibility on the person to alter their behavior in order to address the absurdity. But, as the absurdities which a person encounters pertain, by increasing degrees, to those matters which the individual considers to be of great importance, the moral demand upon the individual to act to address the absurdity is increased. But, there are reasons that individuals tend to act less on matters of great importance than on matters of less importance, though the moral demand to do so be higher. It may be that the individual does not know how to personally act upon the matter of great importance. It may be, as is often the case, that there is no popular support for action on the matter of great importance. It may be that there are threats of personal strife necessarily tied up with the act of addressing the matter of great importance-- strife brought on by possible adverse reactions of others to the individual who so acts, or strife of other kinds. Indeed, the list of reasons as to why people, generally, do not act in order to address matters of great importance must be a long one; history shows us the extreme disproportion of those who have so acted as compared to the rest of society which did not. All these reasons tend not only to prevent action on the part of an individual who has recognized an absurdity, but, also, to inhibit the individual from ever even attaining conscious recognition of the absurdity in the first place.

 

Therefore, as the matter to which an absurdity pertains increases in importance, there will increase the inhibitions to the individual from recognizing the absurdity in the first place.

 

Let us now consider 9/11.

 

No mind, even slightly rational, could read the famous declassified 28 pages, and not come to the conviction that leading Saudi officials, like prince Bandar, knowingly assisted in the 9/11 mass-murders. Besides the 28 pages, there is, of course, such a plethora of evidence incriminating the Saudis, that a group of those who lost family in 9/11 has taken it upon themselves to attempt to bring the Saudis to justice in a court of law. (An action made possible by the only successful presidential-veto-override vote ever carried out against Obama by the congress).

 

Given the evidence revealed in the 28 pages, combined with that compiled by the JASTA families, and yet more evidence compiled by others, one might believe that the Saudis were not complicit in 9/11, as has been asserted by the freaks in the Bush and Obama administrations like Brennan and Mueller (the Mueller, who, as head of FBI, engaged in what former Senator Bob Graham called "aggressive deception" in order to protect the Saudis who were complicit in the 9/11 mass-murders). This done, you can live happily ever after in the comfort of the reality which those persons desire you to believe in. And, as for the cited evidence, you could choose to dismiss it all as but an absurd coincidence. But, if that evidence compels you to conclude that the Saudis did, in fact, knowingly assist in the 9/11 mass-murders, then you are confronted with another, more pungent absurdity-- an absurdity pertaining to a matter of paramount importance. You are confronted with the absurdity of knowing that the official explanation of 9/11 proffered by the government of the United States is not true. Do you feel the inhibitions referenced above starting to gnaw at you?

 

But, one absurdity breeds another. For, given the latter conclusion as a premise, there are only two subsequent conclusions which can be said to necessarily follow. Either, 1.) The security/justice services of the US government are incompetent in an astoundingly absurd degree-- so much so that all of the trillions of dollars worth of resources at their disposal could not enable them to even identify the royal Saudi perpetrators of 9/11, while, at the same time, a few private citizens could do so in a US court thanks to their efforts on JASTA. Or, 2.) There are persons in the US government who intentionally protected those Saudis that assisted in the 9/11 mass murders. (Or, in other words, that there are persons in the US government which committed treason against the United States.) I suppose those inhibitions are shrieking at fever pitch right about now.

 

But, more absurdities follow. If we take the latter conclusion as a premise. We must consider two alternative supplemental premises. 1.) The head of the FBI at the time of 9/11 was not a part of the intentional effort to protect the Saudi perpetrators of the 9/11 mass-murders. If we accept this premise, we must conclude that the head of the FBI at that time was an absurdly incompetent fool. Or, 2.) The head of the FBI at the time of 9/11 was a part of the intentional effort to protect the Saudi perpetrators of the 9/11 mass-murders. If we accept this premise, we must conclude that whoever was the head of FBI at that time is a traitor to the United States of the most despicable kind. But, we all know who was head of the FBI at that time don't we-- Robert Mueller. By now the majority of readers are lost.

 

But, one absurdity breeds another. For, Robert Mueller, the man which sound judgement leads us to conclude to be a traitor, is now investigating President Trump for... that's right-- treason! Absurdity. Robert Mueller, the man who, as head of FBI, committed what is probably the most egregious act of "obstruction of justice" in the history of the United States in protecting those who perpetrated 9/11, is now investigating President Trump for... that's right, "obstruction of justice"! Absurdity. Thus, we see how it s, that the same network of traitors to the US who intentionally protected the perpetrators of 9/11 by lying to the world, are now exerting their efforts to bring down President Trump. To the strong few who are still clinging on: congratulations.

 

But, one absurdity breeds, another. We must consider one last question. Did anyone in the US government have foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks? Let's see here. If we admit that there were persons in the US government who intentionally protected those who perpetrated the 9/11 mass murders, does that not strongly suggest that those same persons in the US government were also complicit in the attack itself? Could we really admit that while, indeed, some in the US government intentionally protected the persons who are known to have perpetrated the 9/11 mass murders, not a single one of those US government officials had foreknowledge of (and was, thus, complicit in) the attack itself? That seems like a proposition slightly too absurd for me. I wonder how many have made it this far with me? 

 

As for the look on that wretch's face- I can only interpret it as the look of the poor fool, freshly informed that "the big incident" which he had been told by his handlers to be "in the works" was, at that moment, underway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Recent Posts
Please reload

© 2017 Ian Brinkley 

  • Grey Twitter Icon