The scene in Boston was played out for a purpose, and since we are not privy to the intentions of its planners, we are left to speculation. In that situation, we are each prone to impose our own view of reality on that scene. For most of the American public, already convinced that there are Muslim terrorists about who want to inflict harm without motive or concern for innocent people, it is very easy to impose the narrative already supplied by leadership.
I don’t buy that narrative. In the wake of the “death” of Osama, I regard Boston as nothing more than a booster shot.
If Osama was so useful in this regard, why kill him off? Why the need for a booster shot? I can only speculate that our opinion managers had sensed that Osama had lost his punch as boogeyman. Since an election was on the horizon, his death could serve a dual purpose – to clear the way for new monsters, and reelect Obama. Please note that I do not imagine that Obama has an active role in these matters. He’s a pawn, or maybe a knight or bishop, but not the hand that moves the players about.
It helps to remember that our impressions of events and the events themselves may only incidentally overlap. Most Americans have only seen the intended images, and have reacted rationally. The images are brutal, gruesome, cruel shots of people willfully dismembered, a wanton attack on innocent folks minding their own business. This induces rage. As with all hoaxes of this nature, the underlying reality might be staged or real. It is only the effect that matters. That the actors are real or fake is incidental. Their being fake can be a transformative realization for many people. So it is important for novices to the game of opinion management and thought control to see that they are actors. A new world view results.
Since the intent of Boston is to induce rage, the questions then become “At who? About what?” The use of Chechen nationals as patsies is a curve ball. There does not seem to be a specific target. However, the rage was created for a purpose, so our task is to understand that purpose.
I’ll leave it there with a few words from Lippmann:
We are not equipped to deal with …subtlety, … variety, so many permutations and combinations. And although we are to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage with it. To traverse the world men must have maps of the world. Their persistent difficulty is to secure maps on which their own need, or someone else’s need, has not sketched in the coast of Bohemia.
No matter our views of events, we must all – those with standard outlooks and me with my more conspiratorial one – realize that we may be living on the coast of Bohemia. From the beginning of my writings on 9/11, leaving the respected mainstream, I have been asked to supply my alternative reality since mine is so at odds with accepted wisdom. So I speculate, as people demand to know things that cannot be known at any given time. For me it is enough to know that what we see is not real. The details fill in gradually over time. It’s not immediately satisfying, but is the only way that we can, from our limited horizon looking up at reality out of a foxhole, begin to come to a better understanding of that objective reality.
That in mind, in the not-too-distant future I want to tackle the biggest hurdle that exists in my mind: media complicity in the hoaxes before our eyes. It’s confounding, but it is there, so an attempt, no matter how flawed, must be made. It will only be a start, but with that start, refinement over time is allowed.