9/11, Part Three: Boomer & Zoomer

Wild tangents and useful conclusions

Sep 14, 2024

∙ Paid

Manipulating the people has replaced representative democracy
Inverting values leads people to surrender everything supposedly to save it
“They hate us for our freedoms” - so why are we giving them up?
We are not confronting potential subjugation. We have already been dominated
The response to Nine-Eleven subverts Western democracy
Which tells us that our governments are on board with the project

(3,000 words or about 14 minutes of your company)

Sep 14, 2024

Governments will go to almost any length to stampede the people in one direction. Inversion persuades the people to give what they value most, in order - supposedly - to save it.

It is a variation on Aesop's fable of the dog who saw his reflection in the water, and a bigger bone which he then dropped — and a warning not to relinquish substance for shadow.

I delayed part three, to listen to people younger than me share their take. The outcome was reassuring. They were not subject to the wailing sirens of propaganda that accompanied Nine-Eleven.

The early attempts to make sense were compromised with talk of black helicopters, drones, military planes disguised as civilian, space weapons, the endless debate whether there was a plane at Shanksville or the Pentagon.

It is called "cognitive infiltration” — to make truthers sound ridiculous to normies — by a controlled opposition that presents 90 per cent valid analysis, and then leaves a turd in the punchbowl.

Such were plentiful on Google Video even before YouTube existed. They used the same technique after the assassination of president John F Kennedy — to count the bullet casings on the grassy knoll while never asking who was behind it; to focus on the mob, never asking which mob or who paid them.

Debank, debunk

The grandfather of “nudge’ is Cass Sunstein, Harvard professor and under president Barack Obama, head of the Office of Information. He developed the government strategy of manipulating behaviour, using fear, that we saw during Covid.

The Sunstein strategy of narrative control goes like this: first try censorship, then debank them. If you cannot shut them up then flood the zone using "counter speech."

This distracts from the owner investors, the oiler bankers, the money power that manipulates events precisely because, having imposed fiat money it can print as much as it needs to buy Minions.

We discussed in Part Two those who managed the events of Nine-Eleven: the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and those who worked the executive positions, Clapper, Brennan, Mueller.

Why focus on the middle men not the overlords? They are visible, sitting there on your TV screen even today; they served the Clinton, Bush and Obama regimes, puncturing the red-blue party balloons; they played roles in subsequent “crises” such as Russiagate, Covid, Hunter Biden’s laptop and Ukraine; above all, they are the ones who betrayed their own people by serving the money power.

They opened the gates to the Citadel and surrendered the wealth, putting children and their future living standards at risk and for what, besides their own personal gain?

The further you zoom out the lens, the less distinct the image: the players are all there, but there is less distinct information; the image must be broken into segments; each story told as vignettes.

Moneycircus took its name form this fairground of wheels and rides. Many articles seem to be tangents but form part of a network; each helps to complete our understanding of the whole.

It is clear that an ultra-rich class is running the world in its own interest: the melding of business and politics which has nothing in common with 99 per cent of people.

Zoomers & boomers

Two things: the what and the how. What are we in the process of losing, and how are they robbing us.

The democracies of Western Europe, we are told, emerged as victors from WW2. Yet less than a century later they have been plunged into a crisis of identity. It turns out that the war did not just redraw borders, but changed the world in ways that are still unfolding.

Historian Darryl Cooper says that no European monarch, however powerful, would have dared to change the life of their indigenous people, to replace them with others from a different continent, to overwhelm in the way that Western Europe is presently being subverted.

"One generation decided that they had no responsibility to any of the people who came before them, and they have no responsibility to those who are coming after them. They are going to permanently, radically, irreparably transform society in ways they know hurt the majority of the population... One generation of people decided that they had the right to do that." [1]

This is not strictly true. The big names who spoke of a new world order, who are behind the institutions and events intended to bring about the one world government of which they spoke, were David Rockefeller, born 1915, and politicians like president George H.W. Bush, born 1924. Nonetheless it is their hirelings, like president Bill Clinton, born 1946, and British prime minister Tony Blair, born 1953, who have implemented it.

Inverting ideas

The idea of inversion gets a bad rap. As above, so below. Others say it is Satanic. Yet inversion, at root, is a way of stealing someone else’s idea.

Globalists are not creative. Unlike the process of globalisation which is the work of millions of individual acts.

Globalism is an ideology of "grey men," a syndicate seeking to eliminate differences to impose central control. Globalisation is the organic integration of the world as a result of individual acts.

Some of these acts may be called into question. My own family can out-do any for self-criticism. Most of the articles written about the South African endeavours focus on the negative, for they treated indentured labourers little better than slaves.

Yet what is more integrating than a railway. Of which, they helped build quite a beautiful one. [2]

Something good came out of the bad. Compare that with the totalitarian concept of “the ends justifies the means.” Is it any different? Only in the extent of central control.

If the events of Nine-Eleven were, as I argue, part of an attempt to create a pretext for further “greying” the population and centralizing control of the world, we can analyse not just what followed, but what came before.

It raises a question: what is it that they are trying to destroy, before they build back better?

Keep reading with a 7-day free trial

Subscribe to Moneycircus to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.