Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,
There is a strange idea hovering about that if you don’t know something then it doesn’t exist.
Kind of like the image of the proverbial ostrich with his head in the sand. But it goes beyond denial. Ignorance is when you don’t know something at all, denial is when you know it, but you ignore it.
What I am talking about here is when you know something and do not deny it, but simply rationalize it away with a statement like “they must have a good reason for doing that,” or similarly, “maybe we don’t know all that there is to know about that.” Which is often followed with, “and I don’t have the time, (inclination, care, interest, curiosity, ability, intelligence, etc.) to look into it further.”
This has always bugged me to some extent, but I must admit I have been marginally guilty of this sort of thinking myself. I mean, do we really have the time to check everything? Well, now I think we have to make the time, and, of course, not everything is important enough to require vetting it for truth. That is an awful thing to say, but I am afraid it is the truth.
Part of this “gullibility” that causes many people to just brush things off assuming that all is ok comes from indoctrination from an early age. I grew up in a culture that seemed to be really obsessed with people’s safety—particularly the safety of children. Think of all the recalls of toys and such. If some toy comes out that has the slightest bit of uncertainty about how it might harm your child, it is pulled.
I should not say I “grew up” with this because most of the crap I played with as a kid would be considered a lethal weapon today—Lawn Darts, BB and pellet guns, Vac-U-Forms, chemistry sets, Easy Bake ovens (this was my sister’s toy, she was a little girl, I was a little boy—I tell you this for clarity). The “safety craze” didn’t really start until a decade or so later. I even remember some kid I knew got an “Atomic Energy Lab” toy that had actual uranium ore in the kit.
I would have died (literally) to get my hands on one of these.
Those were the days.
So over the decades, due to these recalls and safety concerns, we have developed a false sense of security. What regulation agency would bother to recall Lawn Darts but at the same time allow an unsafe vaccine to reach the unwilling arms of children? Well, toys are toys, vaccines are medicine. There ‘ya go.
The government, and other regulatory agencies, know what’s right, right?
Being born into a culture (US) that was known for its integrity, truthfulness, righteousness, and a penchant for character and goodness (ha, ha), no one would ever think that the CIA would have been actively trying to assassinate Fidel Castro, among others, for decades.
I remember first hearing a rumor about this when I was about 15. “No way,” I thought to myself. “Assassinations are illegal! My country would never be involved in such a thing!” Especially attempting to murder a leader of a country that really was just minding their own business. At least so it seemed. (Today, when we hear of such things, we shrug our shoulders and say, “They must know what they are doing.”)
And what about Iran’s Mosaddegh? He was minding his own business overseeing the affairs of Iran as Prime Minister from 1951 to 1953. The US wasn’t happy with him for a number of reasons (primarily economic, like, for example, Mosaddegh wanted Iran to get a bigger share of oil profits that the US and UK were sucking out of his nation’s oil fields, imagine that! What audacity!). The CIA bopped him off as well—indirectly with a CIA created insurrection, which led to Mosaddegh’s imprisonment and more than likely contributed to his health issues, then he died). Sure there is detail here I am not presenting, but you get the picture.
The US Government must have had a good reason.
How about Obama’s drone war? Killing a whole whack of people, including children (I would say “women and children” but I might get in trouble for that).
He must have had a good reason.
Personally, I don’t think there is any “good” reason to kill children—even if as collateral damage or unintentionally.
I am presenting here only a few examples among thousands…more than we even know of course. And this is just government actions, what about pharmaceutical actions, or other medical actions? They all must have good reasons.
As a whole most people seem to think that atrocities cannot happen in the US (or Canada, or the UK, or other countries in the “civilized” West). We are just too sophisticated for that. The irony here is the official spokespeople for the US, for example, actually present themselves as do-gooders. They either keep their actions covert and Top Secret, or they present them as “good things.” We only have to look to people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden to see how the US treats whistleblowers who seek to expose the fact the US really doesn’t have a good reason to do much that it does—at least no reason that benefits us.
If you ever corner a sheep and throw this sort of stuff at them, they will first hit you with the statement, “why do you have to be so negative? Why can’t you just trust your government to take care of business in our best interests as a nation?” They will say that the government has to have secrets in order to keep us safe, and those people who break the law (Assange and Snowden, among many others. Since we are counting, let’s include the truckers of Canada as well) are criminals, and it doesn’t matter if your intention is good, if you break the law you are a criminal and should be punished.
If you try to argue with these sheep about anything more complex, like the CIA’s intervention into Middle Eastern affairs, they will just blow it off and say something like, “All that overseas stuff is just too complicated to sort out. And those Middle Eastern countries (except Israel) are all bad guys, I don’t really care what the US does to them, they know what they are doing.”
Sheep are funny that way. “La, la, la, la, la, la” with fingers plugging their ears. It is easy to push them to this point. Sheep poking. Try it some time for fun and pleasure.
One good way to get them there really quickly is to bring up some false flag issue that has been in the big time news within the last few decades. The 9-11 fiasco is my favorite. You’ll get the sheep fingers into the ears really quickly with the “la la la’s” going full blast. Don’t try something too far out there though, like the moon landing, or the hot ticket now, germ vs. terrain theory. You’ll only just get eye rolls for those whacko topics.
I am curious though…speaking of 9-11… what will happen when that incident is exposed for what it was? (Assuming that will ever occur.)
I will bet you money, no matter how ludicrous it would be, their first response to the realization that their own government was responsible for the destruction of those buildings at the World Trade Center, will be, “They must have had a good reason.”
Actually they did, but it wasn’t a good reason for us.
Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,
There is a strange idea hovering about that if you don’t know something then it doesn’t exist.
Kind of like the image of the proverbial ostrich with his head in the sand. But it goes beyond denial. Ignorance is when you don’t know something at all, denial is when you know it, but you ignore it.
What I am talking about here is when you know something and do not deny it, but simply rationalize it away with a statement like “they must have a good reason for doing that,” or similarly, “maybe we don’t know all that there is to know about that.” Which is often followed with, “and I don’t have the time, (inclination, care, interest, curiosity, ability, intelligence, etc.) to look into it further.”
This has always bugged me to some extent, but I must admit I have been marginally guilty of this sort of thinking myself. I mean, do we really have the time to check everything? Well, now I think we have to make the time, and, of course, not everything is important enough to require vetting it for truth. That is an awful thing to say, but I am afraid it is the truth.
Part of this “gullibility” that causes many people to just brush things off assuming that all is ok comes from indoctrination from an early age. I grew up in a culture that seemed to be really obsessed with people’s safety—particularly the safety of children. Think of all the recalls of toys and such. If some toy comes out that has the slightest bit of uncertainty about how it might harm your child, it is pulled.
I should not say I “grew up” with this because most of the crap I played with as a kid would be considered a lethal weapon today—Lawn Darts, BB and pellet guns, Vac-U-Forms, chemistry sets, Easy Bake ovens (this was my sister’s toy, she was a little girl, I was a little boy—I tell you this for clarity). The “safety craze” didn’t really start until a decade or so later. I even remember some kid I knew got an “Atomic Energy Lab” toy that had actual uranium ore in the kit.
I would have died (literally) to get my hands on one of these.
Those were the days.
So over the decades, due to these recalls and safety concerns, we have developed a false sense of security. What regulation agency would bother to recall Lawn Darts but at the same time allow an unsafe vaccine to reach the unwilling arms of children? Well, toys are toys, vaccines are medicine. There ‘ya go.
The government, and other regulatory agencies, know what’s right, right?
Being born into a culture (US) that was known for its integrity, truthfulness, righteousness, and a penchant for character and goodness (ha, ha), no one would ever think that the CIA would have been actively trying to assassinate Fidel Castro, among others, for decades.
I remember first hearing a rumor about this when I was about 15. “No way,” I thought to myself. “Assassinations are illegal! My country would never be involved in such a thing!” Especially attempting to murder a leader of a country that really was just minding their own business. At least so it seemed. (Today, when we hear of such things, we shrug our shoulders and say, “They must know what they are doing.”)
And what about Iran’s Mosaddegh? He was minding his own business overseeing the affairs of Iran as Prime Minister from 1951 to 1953. The US wasn’t happy with him for a number of reasons (primarily economic, like, for example, Mosaddegh wanted Iran to get a bigger share of oil profits that the US and UK were sucking out of his nation’s oil fields, imagine that! What audacity!). The CIA bopped him off as well—indirectly with a CIA created insurrection, which led to Mosaddegh’s imprisonment and more than likely contributed to his health issues, then he died). Sure there is detail here I am not presenting, but you get the picture.
The US Government must have had a good reason.
How about Obama’s drone war? Killing a whole whack of people, including children (I would say “women and children” but I might get in trouble for that).
He must have had a good reason.
Personally, I don’t think there is any “good” reason to kill children—even if as collateral damage or unintentionally.
I am presenting here only a few examples among thousands…more than we even know of course. And this is just government actions, what about pharmaceutical actions, or other medical actions? They all must have good reasons.
As a whole most people seem to think that atrocities cannot happen in the US (or Canada, or the UK, or other countries in the “civilized” West). We are just too sophisticated for that. The irony here is the official spokespeople for the US, for example, actually present themselves as do-gooders. They either keep their actions covert and Top Secret, or they present them as “good things.” We only have to look to people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden to see how the US treats whistleblowers who seek to expose the fact the US really doesn’t have a good reason to do much that it does—at least no reason that benefits us.
If you ever corner a sheep and throw this sort of stuff at them, they will first hit you with the statement, “why do you have to be so negative? Why can’t you just trust your government to take care of business in our best interests as a nation?” They will say that the government has to have secrets in order to keep us safe, and those people who break the law (Assange and Snowden, among many others. Since we are counting, let’s include the truckers of Canada as well) are criminals, and it doesn’t matter if your intention is good, if you break the law you are a criminal and should be punished.
If you try to argue with these sheep about anything more complex, like the CIA’s intervention into Middle Eastern affairs, they will just blow it off and say something like, “All that overseas stuff is just too complicated to sort out. And those Middle Eastern countries (except Israel) are all bad guys, I don’t really care what the US does to them, they know what they are doing.”
Sheep are funny that way. “La, la, la, la, la, la” with fingers plugging their ears. It is easy to push them to this point. Sheep poking. Try it some time for fun and pleasure.
One good way to get them there really quickly is to bring up some false flag issue that has been in the big time news within the last few decades. The 9-11 fiasco is my favorite. You’ll get the sheep fingers into the ears really quickly with the “la la la’s” going full blast. Don’t try something too far out there though, like the moon landing, or the hot ticket now, germ vs. terrain theory. You’ll only just get eye rolls for those whacko topics.
I am curious though…speaking of 9-11… what will happen when that incident is exposed for what it was? (Assuming that will ever occur.)
I will bet you money, no matter how ludicrous it would be, their first response to the realization that their own government was responsible for the destruction of those buildings at the World Trade Center, will be, “They must have had a good reason.”
Actually they did, but it wasn’t a good reason for us.
Loading…
