STUPID QUESTIONS

STUPID QUESTIONS - Hybrid Rogue

'There is no such thing as a stupid question.' It's a phrase I've heard since Kindergarten, and for good reason. Often in a state of perfectly understandable ignorance, little tykes need to ask questions, and they need to feel comfortable doing so. Knowing that their questions will not be dismissed by their teachers and parents encourages children to begin the process of asking, seeking, and developing the ability to actually think and not just regurgitate mindless bits of nonsense. Of course, the answers to these sincere questions may seem self-evident to adults, but ridiculing children for asking them is pretty nasty. It kills curiosity and stunts learning.

But even then, I think this maxim is in desperate need of revision.

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but only if it is asked sincerely. There are definitely such things as stupid questions.

The power of a stupid question lies in its ability to promote rigid thinking, and to prevent the asking and answering of truly sincere questions. And unfortunately, like a bad cold or a catchy tune written for someone half our age, stupid questions are highly contagious. In fact, in our highly ponerized society, such questions are epidemic, particularly when it comes to the uncomfortable truths about what really happened on 9/11.

If you watch or read the mainstream media coverage about the much derided "radical anti-government hate speech" of the "lunatic fringe"

(less colorfully known as the questions and theories of the 9/11 Truth movement), you'll surely have encountered stupid questions. Here are just three:

1) Do you really (really emphasize the really) believe the government slaughtered its own people?

2) Surely, if so many people were involved in such a vast conspiracy, wouldn't someone have come forward?

3) If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?

Asked sincerely, these questions have simple answers: 1) Yes, 2) No,

3) They're dead (of course, there's probably more to it than that, but we can't know). But of course, the questions are not sincere, and the reporters (or slightly hysterical friends in 'real' life) asking them are not interested in the answers. In fact, the framing of the questions is designed to have a specific effect on those watching the interview. The questions are (often, not always) deliberately loaded with suggestions intended to discredit the person on the receiving end in the mind of the viewer.

1) Suggestion: You're crazy for believing the government would slaughter its own people.

2) Suggestion: You're crazy for believing that conspiracies exist.

3) Suggestion: You're crazy for believing that an entire plane full of people would "disappear".

They're called paramoralisms, and we've all heard them since childhood, typically coming from the mouth of someone whose unquestioned (and often unjustified) beliefs have been challenged by a dissenting opinion. "You don't REALLY believe that do you?!" The question obviously isn't intended to gather data. It's an emotional manipulation designed to browbeat the other person into accepting the party line. The reasonable, and sincere, way to ask the question would be: "That's an interesting theory. I don't agree based on what I know, but what's your justification for thinking that?" But the real true believers are never really looking for a conversation, are they?

Along with suggestions, the questions above are loaded with impenetrable assumptions:

1) Assumption: Our government would not kill its own people.

2) Assumption: All conspiracies are easily and publicly exposed.

3) Assumption: There is no way to explain this glaring hole in your argument, because [see assumption 1].

These questions would be excusable if they were asked by fourth-graders, but coming from professional reporters, they really are stupid. Are we really to believe these people are that ignorant?

Are their assumptions really that persuasive? And if they're not unquestionable, and in fact easily refuted, what does that say about the people professing to hold these assumptions? Stripped of their denigrating suggestions and rigid assumptions, three sincere questions present themselves, all easily answered:

1) Would the government kill its own civilians?

2) Would co-conspirators admit to their part in a conspiracy?

3) What might the people behind 9/11, if they weren't Islamic terrorists, have done to the passengers of Flight 77?

Let's take them one at a time and see what we can discover. Of course, it's impossible to read minds and determine exactly what the government would or would not do in a particular situation, so let's get empirical.

1) DO governments (the American one in particular) kill their own civilians? Have they done so in the past? Well, umm, yeah, they do.

But it usually takes an outsider to make the case, or lots of time. Do you really think ordinary Germans accepted the fact that their Nazi leaders were inhuman sadists torturing and killing their own people?

It's easy to accept other people's governments don't really give a shit about their own people. It's another thing altogether to accept that your own government really doesn't care one way or the other if you die from heart disease, a 'terrorist' attack, or blunt injuries to the head in a torture cell. You can take that to the bank.

2) DO co-conspirators admit to their part in secretive conspiracies?

This isn't the third grade. Anyone involved in a good, old-fashioned conspiracy has learned well enough to exclude the "nervous Billies" who spill the beans to the mom or headmistress about the plot to steal school mascot. Real conspiracies involve people who want something, and who know the stakes. They're fully aware that what they're doing is against the law (which is why it's called a conspiracy in law in the first place), and no, they have no interest in earning themselves a special place in solitary confinement or a public lynching. There's a reason an explicit paper trail for the Holocaust is so hard to find.

No, it's not because it didn't happen. It's because the psychopaths planning it knew enough to keep it off paper. The only chances of a real conspiracy's cover being blown are: 1) when investigators find evidence for it, or 2) someone not involved, or involved only peripherally, comes forward with suggestive information. Both have happened in the case of 9/11, as any reader of SOTT.net can become aware of by reading through our archives.

3) Use your imagination. When the Israelis ethnically cleansed Palestine, do you really think they cared about 'neutralizing' a village that stood in their path? No, they herded the men, old and young, into a small area, shot them all, and buried the bodies. The words "massacre" and "war crimes" exist for a reason: they happen. If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon (leaving open the question of what exactly DID happen, again an unknown that would require a real investigation), is it really so hard to believe that its passengers were summarily executed at some remote region? And, going back to point number 2, if you were the one ordered to pull the trigger (or doing it voluntarily), would you incriminate yourself by blowing the lid on the whole op? Or if you happened to witness it, would you come forward? Or would you be too afraid that you might share the same fate as the people you saw murdered in cold blood?

If it sounds stark, and horrifying, it's because it is. Hard to believe? Maybe, for those who don't read history or know anything about so-called 'black ops'. Reality? You bet. But with a corporate media paid to keep the truth from ever reaching your ears (truth is bad for profits in oh-so-many industries, after all), you're unlikely to hear about it. Unless it's some foreign loony, of course. And the badgering and hysterical incredulity will continue as long as there's a thing called print and television news.

In sum, if there's one thing to learn from 9/11, it's that this world is a scary, scary place. It's also a mendacious, malevolent, and pretty horrific place. Psychopaths in power get away with treason, liars rely on the complacency and mushy brains of their target audience, and the truth is crucified daily. Sorry to end this one on a downer, but in a world where such an obvious false-flag op as 9/11 has been allowed to go un-investigated and its perps unpunished, I don't see a lot of hope. At least more and more people are catching on. But officials and media the world over are still playing the game, blaming the victims, murdering thousands, and having a grand old laugh at the con they've pulled on humanity. And for that, I'm mad as hell.

--

" An injustice to one is an injustice to all." M. L. King