Outside the Spectrum of Acceptable Opinion

 

Kevin Ryan
July 6. 2024

Twenty years ago, I was fired for speaking out about lies related to the crimes of September 11^th, 2001. More recently, I lost a job for refusing to be injected with the experimental gene therapies being pushed for Covid. I’m not complaining as there were conscious decisions made in each case. But these incidents highlight the difficulty experienced by anyone who dares to recognize and challenge state crimes. Losing a job is just the beginning of that journey.

It’s one thing to not be able to work because you won’t go along with deceit and it’s another thing to live with people who willfully ignore state crimes. Even if you find a way to work, you have to interact with many others who avoid any thoughts that are out of their comfort zone. If you don’t just go along to get along, how can you interact and talk to others without it all being depressingly superficial?

With most people you can’t talk about “conspiracy theories” unless it’s just a joke. Ha—obviously rich and powerful people don’t engage in conspiracies! Instead, you can only talk to people about things like the weather or the price of tomatoes. But some say the weather is being controlled and that tomatoes are coated with poisons so don’t bring up those topics. And you can’t talk about politics in any form without realizing that your framework for discussion is strictly limited to “the spectrum of acceptable opinion” as Chomsky ironically put it.

I’m getting old though, so maybe it’s just me. Are younger people getting a clue earlier and learning to live with willful ignorance? It’s difficult to know since the term willful ignorance suggests keeping conscious thoughts hidden. Maybe willful oblivion—the lack of mindfulness that makes it easy to be scammed—is a better term. The Better Business Bureau did a study on the vulnerability of different age groups to scams. It found that “millennials and well-educated folks are more likely to be taken precisely because they think they’re too smart to be.” From that perspective things are not looking brighter in the near term.

I’ve noticed the problem with academics and others who think they are well-educated. They seem to have perfected a state of willful oblivion and, although egoism plays a part, it is a mindset based on unquestioning acceptance of a perceived consensus. The perceived consensus has to be established rapidly though, as with 9/11 and Covid, or these folks might dig into the details and question the next power-grabbing narrative. Just kidding, they will never question the narrative of the state when it matters.

Ideas about state crimes vary among others though. Varieties include more than just 9/11, Covid, weather control and tomato poisoning. I regularly hear about dozens of commonly held notions that suggest state crimes. Anyone you meet might have a touch of one or the other in their thoughts. Some of them are sure to be right in ways you don’t expect so it’s best to hear them out until it’s clear whether their arguments are logical or not.

It would be better if we could all agree on which state crimes are likely to be real, without the help of academia or any other institution beholden to the state. It’s an idea that I’ve written and spoken about recently—the need for a gauge upon which to measure new narratives for the possibility of state crime. The benefits would include better judgment around personal and social decisions, if not justice.  And it’s increasingly important to know when state crimes are occurring as power and geographical control are concentrating globally with each passing year.

In the interim, unless we’re ready to give up and let the whole shitshow play out, we need to talk and that’s hard when common ground is limited. It’s also hard if you feel betrayed by past experiences. Nonetheless we must try.

In my experience discussing state crimes I’ve had to be very careful about what I say, double checking my facts and being very precise in my wording. That’s because the crimes I’ve spoken about, if revealed, have the potential to bring down much of the corrupt system we live in. For that reason, the state has responded with characters who disrupt any questioning. Feel free to ask about weather control but mention anything about the fact that we don’t know who did 9/11 and you will be inundated with challenges to the minutiae and unsolicited comments about absurd things like Judy Wood’s “Star Wars beams in orbit.”

It’s not so bad anymore since the 9/11 crimes don’t have the emotional impact they once had and the state seems to have reassigned most of its disinformation specialists to other tasks. In fact, lately it’s become fashionable to talk about 9/11 in a limited way. Although I was a guest on shows with much larger audiences in years gone by, like NPR and Air America radio, more welcoming podcasts with reasonably large audiences have discussed the need for 9/11 truth in the last year or two. They typically want to focus the discussion on a sensational “hook” and sometimes later remove the episode from Youtube to avoid being banned. But still, there are more people willing to discuss the 9/11 crimes now that they appear to be more safely in the rearview mirror.

The Western empire is dying, no doubt to be replaced by another, but for many reasons it’s still important to talk about the need for 9/11 truth. The crimes of 9/11 led to the deaths of nearly five million people in the resulting “War on Terror” and established justification for mass surveillance, pre-emptive war, and torture. More importantly the acceptance of such blatant deception set a precedent for future state crimes. If we don’t call for truth now, the next deception will likely take away more than our jobs.

Source: https://digwithin.net/2024/07/06/outside-the-spectrum-of-acceptable-opinion/