If 9/11 turns out to have been am inside job, it would be one of the biggest “Big Lies” ever. And of course those are the ones that have the best chance of being believed.
As a result of watching this video, I have also re-evaluated the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Most of us hear it as children, laugh, and store it away as a familiar memory.
Try digging it out, cleaning it up, polishing it, and gazing into the resulting mirror. It may tell you some very surprising things about human nature.
I love the Emperor’s New Clothes, but I think it was Cervantes who first used that kind of trick/joke in Don Quixote. There is a scene in an Inn involving a Judge, a Duke, DQ’s friend a priest and a few others when they try to convince a barber that his basin is actually a Knight’s hamlet (they are trying to help Don Quixote and/or make fun of him) but the outsiders (who did not know about DQ’s madness ) experience it like what Andersen describes in his Emperor’s New Clothes.
PS I think the ‘madness’ Cervantes describes in Don Q. is a cleverly executed (written about 400 years ago) attempt to show religion as ridiculous and basically a nonsense. What happens when everyone starts pretending, imagining and lying to support other people’s delusions – that was the basic premise of his book. It’s often voted as the best book ever written
I figured this out after I read it about 8 times.
Surely Cervantes’ target was something both more deserving and doable than ‘religion.’ The obsession with religion is a modern phenomenon. I think Cervantes was attacking all the vices and shortcomings which religion catalogued and brought to our attention, though not without human weakness and hypocrisy.
the main thing about Don Q was that he was generally very wise and honorable UNLESS the subject of discussion changed to knight errantry.
I have seen in real life many such people they seem very wise and scientific until they start talking about their invisible friends, submission to imaginary masters etc…After I read the book a few times (I think the Penguin translation is the best by far) I started noticing that every time he acts mad – the priest is always there. And he is pretending he wants to ‘save’ him.
not just that the priest tries to help him because he is his friend – he actually shit-stirs a lot to bring even more madness in DQ. And Cervantes often points to this fact how experienced in tricking people priest is (this is wisely done – priest also have a sense of humor – it’s a fine line and remember the book was written during Spanish Inquisition – he could not openly criticize the church) . I think this very fact is what makes Don Quixote the best (and the bravest) book ever written.
And there are many other clues about the priest (very cleverly placed and quite funny) and about DQ that are made in a way once you replace the Bible for Books of Knight Erantry everything falls into place and makes perfect sense.
Also there are many scenes that contrasts DQ’s deluded explanations with how a group of people (often strangers) interacts. And it’s done in a very clever way to contrast delusions (easy explanations of events where you don’t have to use your brain – you just repeat the official dogma) with how we humans CAN aggregate our experience and good will to solve all kinds of problems- and how far superior the explanations/solutions achieved this way are.
The whole book is filled with jokes about the un-reality and the reality is always contrasted subtly or not so subtly – as far superior in every possible way.
The funnest scenes are to do with other people building on DQ’s lies/delusions (intentionally or not) – the way lies get out of control when everyone not just pretends lies are true, but like Sancho Panza they try to profit from these lies (and then they get exposed).
There is a scene when a Duchess (who has ‘read ‘the book ‘Don Quixote’ – that’s how she knows everything about DQ and likes to play pranks with him – circular explanations which are logically impossible) makes fun of Sancho – she exposes his lie about Dulcinea – and twists it in a way whereby she makes Sancho believe his own lie (that was meant to trick DQ):
“..what most astonished the Duchess was that Sancho was so very simple-minded as to have made to believe as absolute truth that Dulcinea del Toboso had been enchanted, when he himself was the enchanter and the hoaxer…”
The danger of getting lost in your own lies – you may end up believing them – the book is filled with such hints.
Also the way priest confiscates a couple of expensive books (because they offer a different narrative and the In-keeper (who owns the books) and many others really enjoy listening to someone read them) – it’s obvious that the priest feels threatened by a competing narrative (one must not eat from the Tree of Knowledge – only believe my lies)
There are many more clues there – and many of the strongest clues (that this is indeed about making fun about glorifying un-reality) are the funniest in the book. And the priest is more or less always there what that happens and Cervantes emphasizes how skilled the priest is in deceiving others (although it’s placed in a good context – he is helping DQ to become sane again – DQ is obsessed with a different/competing un-reality – KNight Errant stories that everyone can tell are false and stupid).
And at the end DQ himself admits (before he dies) how irrational it was to allow himself to be so deluded. And he admits he knew it was based on lies (as most people know – they know its BS to pretend you believe lies – just because everyone else seems to pretends to do the same).
I had to read the whole book (1022 pages) I think 8 times before I connected the dots – and I now have no doubts that was what Cervantes was making fun of exposing as absurd.
Thank you for this very interesting mini-essay.
I shall try to read DQ.
Perhaps I can get into it, having this perspective on what it is “really” about.
There is another newer translation marketed as ‘the best’ by Edith Grossman (I have a few copies of both). It’s not as good – although the only difference between these 2 translation is about 30 sentences or so – they make so much more sense translated by John Rutherford, and Edit G’s translation they sound awkward and lost in translation.
So I would definitely go for the Penguin Classic version – I have sent you the exact link above – they have a few Penguin versions too. This one was published in the US in 2003.
There are many more hints to support my theory above – i.e. lots of events that look like miracles, but turn out to be cleaver tricks – and they are exposed for all to see that ‘miracle’ is usually something else.
I had a similar event happen to me in London one night many years ago when I went to the cellar of the hotel on Bond St where I used to work as a night receptionist to pick some fresh croissants at 4.30 or so a.m. A week or so before a Sicilian friend told me that a room-service waiter died and I knew that old man and liked him. So as I was walking downstairs (and it was dark in the room-service area) I heard cups being moved and cutlery noise. I looked up and I saw a silhouette of a short old fat Sicilian looking man – exactly like the guy who died a week before. I picked my croissants and run upstairs where I woke up my Italian friend/co-worked who told me about the death. I woke him up and told him the old guy who died was downstairs preparing for his shift!! My friend almost fell of his chair laughing: “That’s his twin-brother!” I never expected an old room service waiter from Sicily to have a twin brother doing the same job in the same hotel in London. …if I did not have anyone to clarify – I would think it’s a ‘miracle’ of some sort even though I was never religions.
Cervatnes’ book is full of such demystifying of ‘miracles’ on top of other stuff. All to do with reverse-engineering and putting apart a dogma promoting un-reality.
Also the second part is very funny – especially after they meet the Duke and the Duchess – probably the funniest events ever written about
Cervantes said of his work Don Quijote, that it was not his child but a bastard son. He was referring to the Spanish Inquisition’s censorship of his work. In fact the work is a critique of Castilian nobility (hidalguismo). They had believed the lies which had inflated them.
Cervantes fills the work with coded messages and wordplay to fool and get past the state censors. Then in 16th century the idea of a ‘Spain’ controlled from Castile was just beginning.
I think that he was referring to the second book/part of DQ – it was published in 2 parts.
And he brilliantly managed to use that event sumo-style against the illegal fake DQ. There are many very funny and wise events that build onto that problem (with the illegal second part of DQ book).
He turned what happened in real life around sumo-style to profit from it – and actually some of the funniest jokes seem to have been inspired by that fake 2nd book.
Very brilliant and that’s probably the main reason why it feels so modern even 400 years later
PS
I did not clarify – the 2nd part of Don Q was published illegally by someone else even before Cervantes finished his own original 2nd part – that was what he was referring to I think when he said it was a bastard child.
But he intelligently managed to build that real-life event into his original 2nd book (once he published it) – in a very brilliant funny way. That’s why it feels so modern, surreal and funny – it has another dimension to it that i have never seen in any other book. A brilliant solution to a real – life problem – turned around so to profit from it.
“What happens when everyone starts pretending, imagining and lying to support other people’s delusions”
So well put!
It might also be called mass hysteria/mass delusion.
Except that I guess so many people are simply ignorant.
Yet . . . what are the latest figures from polls as to what percentage of Americans believes the official 9/11 story? And the official JFK narrative?
Does anyone know this?
In a way, given the nonstop onslaught of lies and distortions, it is incredible how many Americans do manage to see through the BS. Wasn’t that always a virtue of the “rube”? It would align with the idea that so-called “sophisticated” thinkers are the easiest to fool. In the Emperor’s New Clothes story, it is an innocent little boy who blasts through the mass delusion or mass pretense to avoid the sanctions of telling the obvious truth.
thank you Katherine – that’s been my theory for years – I have never seen anything similar written or said about DQ. I actually don’t know anyone who has read it -apart from my Serbian high-school friends – we had to read it long time ago – at the age of 15 – I did not understand anything and it was probably not a good translation – you will see in the foreword of that Penguin Classic translation why most translations were bad – John Rutherford explains it – it’s very interesting and a good metaphor for many other problems we have today.
I often come up with original interpretations (you would not believe how many times I was accused of plagiarism while doing my degree in psychology in England) – people marking my assignments just could not believe I could come up with such interpretations) . And I could not believe that they could not believe…I often had to complain to the director of course.
I think Cervantes was ridiculing Chivalry. i just read Leon Gaultier’s book Chivalry. If i remember correctly by the 12th and 13th centuries it was already corrupt. In the 13th century the Mongol invasions annihilated the aristocratic class it was based on and made way for the Renaissance. See Jack Weatherford re: Ghenghis Khan. Speaking of the Emperor’s New Clothes i am still reeling from the overturning of my schooling. Take for example Preparata on the WWs. Someone once gave me a book by one, Sam Harris; all about religion or God; it made me puke. I was taught Cervantes’ Don Quixote was the first novel, but i couldn’t read it. For me these are issues for which satire is repugnant. What I really think still eludes my facility with language. Neither Christian nor atheist….just a jack russell who would still love to bite Descartes in the face.
2 planes are supposed to have taken down 3 buildings. Even the math doesn’t add up.
This is a great movie with a lot of technical info. What a blunder by the BBC to announce the collapse of the building 1/4 hour before it actually happened!
What makes no sense is how planes, made from aluminium, can penetrate buildings made from concrete and steel. Kinetic energy had nothing to do with it, as those planes had jet engines and not rocket ones, giving them limited speed. Not only did the noses of the planes penetrate the buildings, but their bodies, wings, even the small tails. How is that possible ? Did we see real planes make penetrations, or were those holograms ? As for Building No. 7, was that the command post for the entire hoax, destroyed after the job was done ?
All nuclear power plants are built to withstand airliners from penetrating the domes.
Thus, planes at 450-550 mph are powerful due to speed and weight and mass. It’s been known and engineered for over 50 years.
Real planes did penetrate both World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2.
The building cores were made of concrete and steel and there was virtually nothing left of those cores leading to the question of “what destroyed the cores” but that’s a separate question. However the planes penetrated the building walls which were steel-framed but without concrete. A high-velocity aluminum projectile (the planes) can and did penetrate the steel framing just as a soft lead bullet (or a copper-jacketed lead bullet) can penetrate a steel plate if the bullet is going fast enough. I’ve seen many 22-caliber (.223 and 556) copper-jacketed lead bullets from AR-15 rilfes penetrate 1/4-inch thick hard steel plates. The high velocity of the bullet possesses sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate the plate. As for Building 7, yes, in my opinion, that was the command center for the entire hoax and that’s why it too was intentionally brought down after the “job was done” on Buildings 1 and 2. Building 7 also supposedly contained the 2nd largest CIA station post after CIA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Well, I would like to remind you what the architect of the World Trade Center has said numerous times, namely that they took into consideration the fact that a plane could accidenty hit the Center, and they thus made the World Trade Center STRONGER that it had to be. I still have to be convinced that aluminium made planes could have penetrated those two buildings.
Yes; the buildings were strong however the primary strength was in the core of WTC 1 and 2. The core was the strong “spine” of each building that supported all the floors. Both cores were completely demolished by first detonating explosives in the basement thus blowing open the building core’s elevator shafts. This took place (oops) just before the planes hit the top of the buildings. Once the elevator shafts in the core were opened (and later in the scenario after the fires had burned for a while) a small (10 kiloton, if memory serves) nuclear device placed in the bedrock, below ground beneath each building was detonated. Simultaneously, (building detonations are computer controlled) explosives that had been pre-placed (Thanks, Israeli “art students”) on many floors were detonated starting from the top of the building, moving downwards. The nuclear blast was funneled upward through the building core(s) by the below-ground bedrock effectively vaporizing the concrete and steel building core. The floors collapsed downward as 1) the core was vaporized and 2) the steel frame supporting each floor was detonated. The official “pancake collapse” theory is baloney. The simultaneous upward building core vaporization and the downward floor-by-floor detonation explains why the building collapsed “from the top down”. Oh, and what about the planes? They were merely a distraction; a convenient narrative but they didn’t play any significant role in the building collapse.
The USA, and the rest of the world, has been tiptoeing past the graveyard ever since 9/11.
We do not dare look to see what is in the graveyard.
It would bring down the government.
So, best not to look.
I wonder where the “unraveling” that Ketchum (is that his name?) mentions is taking place. In the public? In branches of the government? In other countries? The official narrative has been recognized as being weak to the point of ridiculousness for years. Ketchum doesn’t really say anything new. But he does strongly suggest the fear that motivates potential whistleblowers to stay mum. One of the experts cited in the film, the Dutch engineer, Danny Yawenko, died in a car accident . . . Before he died he made this video:
Ketchum also does clearly call out the ludicrousness of the NIST positions. To me, the videos of the NIST speakers speak volumes. Especially adding the “warning” directed to potential dissenters that these studies are based on science is a clear signal that has a name (that I don’t recall) in witness/statement analysis. That is, when a interrogee provides additional information that rebuts a question or statement that has not been posed or asked. Kind of “freelances” by mentioning stuff that the person unconscioiusly connects to, say, the crime. A fancy version of “the lady doth protest too much.” The speaker *knows* that what lies behind the report is *not* science. One of the the other NIST guys was quite openly defensive to the point of appearing almost pugnacious. I would love to see these videos subjected to statement/content analysis by an experienced police analyst.
BTW, it is the same dynamic with the JFK assassination. The official story “unraveled” long ago, but no heads have rolled. Tiptoeing past the graveyard, for going on fifty years now.
Professor Graeme MacQueen analyses 1st responders testimony (10 min). Just this testimony alone is enough to dismantle the entire official narrative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwQa5eokieY
We know that, Anonymous. But that isn’t the point!
The distinction is that Peter Michael Ketcham worked for NIST at the time and was dead asleep at the time and yet woke up out of his highly qualified, but nevertheless dead asleep mind control trance..
The impatient will say “So what? There are STILL a lot of people in that trance (including many who will say without shame, “Don’t tell me ANYTHING about it. I DON’T WANT to know!”). So, I’m not impressed. Until full disclosure is presented to me like an ice cream sundae with a cherry on top, I’m not buying that anything significant has been done by any truthers, including this guy, and I don’t see that I could do anything to change that either. “
Such people are in the worst trance of all, Anonymous. Clearly the dam of damning evidence against the inside job traitors and their disgustingly immoral and cowardly cover-up artists has taken a lot of very serious hits and this is another one.
The task is to keep hitting until the dam breaks, not to just “get tired of it all.”
JEEZ!!!
What if I group of 20 or 100 MORE present or past NIST employees and specialists were inspired by Ketcham to join him, or even reveal more, about how Shyam Sunder agreed to sell his soul to the devil and utter his SHAM b.s. report while expecting his colleagues and the rest of the world to “blue pill it” and gobble up the bovine excrement like millions of dung beetles??
What if things get to critical mass because of Assange leaks or Weinstein or Podesta or who knows what infighting?
I think Robert David Steele at least has the right approach with congress: Full Amnesty for any compromising black mail material on them if they will identify the blackmailers that set them up.
Don’t let the dam break unless you helped break it. Otherwise, it is true to say that your lack of will and courage kept it standing years longer than it might otherwise have crumbled.
Your links are good but don’t just preach to the choir here.
People out there are ready to rally to the “certain trumpet” much, much, much more than 5 or 10 years ago. Or even 1 year ago before Hitlery was destroyed.
Ergo fatigue or “Ho hum, what else is new?” boredom is most inappropriate.
I agree with you, this vid is important. A good one to share with skeptical friends and family. Not everyone has the time to go into the bottomless cavern of excellent research and it’s also important who’s saying what.
That’s easy. The day after, in an interview in the NY Times, no less, Benjamin Netanyahu was asked his opinion and he blurted out, “It’s very good!”, then realizing he was spilling the beans, went on to say, “not very good but it will create sympathy for Israel”.
Was it an inside job? If you want to know what the devil would do, just ask yourself what the most absolutely unthinkable, vile, corrupt, awful, unbelievable, and evil possibility would be. Then accept the fact that he has likely already done the very thing, or worse. So, is it possible? I would say so.
a grand, ritual psyop done deliberately so crude, so amateurish, so obvious, to make sure everybody could see through it with ease,
well knowing that figuring out the uncomfortable truth would put every single person in a huge dilemma – or in proper mind-control terminology – in a inescapable double-bind:
1)
If you go with what your instinct, intuition and intellect tells you, namely that you have witnessed a hoax of unimaginable proportions, you risk to be ‘punished’ by family and society and become an outcast.
2)
If you go with the fallacious construct, the official narrative, Zion will allow you to stay in the ‘herd’, but from now on you will suffer from depression, mind fog, a sense of ‘loss of reality’, and cognitive dissonance.
Re: 1 and 2, ha ha, how right you are! You will definitely lose a lot of “friends”, friends with a small f. However, as Bon Scott observed, sometimes “being a bad boy ain’t that bad.” ;)
The “lukewarm feedbact to this video” is probably due to the fact that a lot of frequent readers of the Saker’s blog don’t believe in the official story of 9/11, and the video isn’t new. I saw it or another one with Peter Michael Ketcham in it some time ago.
BTW, does anyone know what BBC had to say about its blunder that Serbian girl referred to above?
In short, 9/11 was a chaotic day, they no longer have the original tapes to double check, mis-communications happen all the time, it’s just a small error, not a conspiracy, blah blah..
The link you provided is unusually inept cheek even for the beeb. I love how they provide no evidence, none at all. “Dog ate my homework” level sophistry. And a Youtube commentator making fun of conspiracies. Oh, and we’re terribly sorry, but we lost the tapes due to a “cock-up”, not, repeat not, a conspiracy.
The beeb is quite good at manufacturing conspiracies every day, including that “documentary” on Syria that they never bothered to explain. Do their geniuses think it’s still 1974, tra la la, ignore it and it will go away? It’s 2017 — World’s changed.
There have been rare occasions where stories have disappeared from, Radio 4, to be replaced by repeating loops saying “this story has been removed”.
Did you ever see that RT anniversary panel when a lady from the BBC claimed that there was no editorial supervision, because their overseas broadcasts speak many different languages? That was also another laff riot.
To mad as hell
I don’t understand that so many people still comment on a thing that as every person in good physical and mental health know was a zionist plot from A to Z and waist their time ah sh.t sorry i am again wasting my precious time
If 9/11 turns out to have been am inside job, it would be one of the biggest “Big Lies” ever. And of course those are the ones that have the best chance of being believed.
As a result of watching this video, I have also re-evaluated the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. Most of us hear it as children, laugh, and store it away as a familiar memory.
Try digging it out, cleaning it up, polishing it, and gazing into the resulting mirror. It may tell you some very surprising things about human nature.
I love the Emperor’s New Clothes, but I think it was Cervantes who first used that kind of trick/joke in Don Quixote. There is a scene in an Inn involving a Judge, a Duke, DQ’s friend a priest and a few others when they try to convince a barber that his basin is actually a Knight’s hamlet (they are trying to help Don Quixote and/or make fun of him) but the outsiders (who did not know about DQ’s madness ) experience it like what Andersen describes in his Emperor’s New Clothes.
PS I think the ‘madness’ Cervantes describes in Don Q. is a cleverly executed (written about 400 years ago) attempt to show religion as ridiculous and basically a nonsense. What happens when everyone starts pretending, imagining and lying to support other people’s delusions – that was the basic premise of his book. It’s often voted as the best book ever written
I figured this out after I read it about 8 times.
Surely Cervantes’ target was something both more deserving and doable than ‘religion.’ The obsession with religion is a modern phenomenon. I think Cervantes was attacking all the vices and shortcomings which religion catalogued and brought to our attention, though not without human weakness and hypocrisy.
the main thing about Don Q was that he was generally very wise and honorable UNLESS the subject of discussion changed to knight errantry.
I have seen in real life many such people they seem very wise and scientific until they start talking about their invisible friends, submission to imaginary masters etc…After I read the book a few times (I think the Penguin translation is the best by far) I started noticing that every time he acts mad – the priest is always there. And he is pretending he wants to ‘save’ him.
not just that the priest tries to help him because he is his friend – he actually shit-stirs a lot to bring even more madness in DQ. And Cervantes often points to this fact how experienced in tricking people priest is (this is wisely done – priest also have a sense of humor – it’s a fine line and remember the book was written during Spanish Inquisition – he could not openly criticize the church) . I think this very fact is what makes Don Quixote the best (and the bravest) book ever written.
And there are many other clues about the priest (very cleverly placed and quite funny) and about DQ that are made in a way once you replace the Bible for Books of Knight Erantry everything falls into place and makes perfect sense.
Also there are many scenes that contrasts DQ’s deluded explanations with how a group of people (often strangers) interacts. And it’s done in a very clever way to contrast delusions (easy explanations of events where you don’t have to use your brain – you just repeat the official dogma) with how we humans CAN aggregate our experience and good will to solve all kinds of problems- and how far superior the explanations/solutions achieved this way are.
The whole book is filled with jokes about the un-reality and the reality is always contrasted subtly or not so subtly – as far superior in every possible way.
The funnest scenes are to do with other people building on DQ’s lies/delusions (intentionally or not) – the way lies get out of control when everyone not just pretends lies are true, but like Sancho Panza they try to profit from these lies (and then they get exposed).
There is a scene when a Duchess (who has ‘read ‘the book ‘Don Quixote’ – that’s how she knows everything about DQ and likes to play pranks with him – circular explanations which are logically impossible) makes fun of Sancho – she exposes his lie about Dulcinea – and twists it in a way whereby she makes Sancho believe his own lie (that was meant to trick DQ):
“..what most astonished the Duchess was that Sancho was so very simple-minded as to have made to believe as absolute truth that Dulcinea del Toboso had been enchanted, when he himself was the enchanter and the hoaxer…”
The danger of getting lost in your own lies – you may end up believing them – the book is filled with such hints.
Also the way priest confiscates a couple of expensive books (because they offer a different narrative and the In-keeper (who owns the books) and many others really enjoy listening to someone read them) – it’s obvious that the priest feels threatened by a competing narrative (one must not eat from the Tree of Knowledge – only believe my lies)
There are many more clues there – and many of the strongest clues (that this is indeed about making fun about glorifying un-reality) are the funniest in the book. And the priest is more or less always there what that happens and Cervantes emphasizes how skilled the priest is in deceiving others (although it’s placed in a good context – he is helping DQ to become sane again – DQ is obsessed with a different/competing un-reality – KNight Errant stories that everyone can tell are false and stupid).
And at the end DQ himself admits (before he dies) how irrational it was to allow himself to be so deluded. And he admits he knew it was based on lies (as most people know – they know its BS to pretend you believe lies – just because everyone else seems to pretends to do the same).
I had to read the whole book (1022 pages) I think 8 times before I connected the dots – and I now have no doubts that was what Cervantes was making fun of exposing as absurd.
Thank you for this very interesting mini-essay.
I shall try to read DQ.
Perhaps I can get into it, having this perspective on what it is “really” about.
Katherine
you are welcome – I read a few translations and the Penguin one by by John Rutherford is by far the best. Here is the link (it does not come in Kindle format – the link for kindle shows you another inferior translation):
https://www.amazon.com/Quixote-Penguin-Classics-Cervantes-Saavedra/dp/0142437239/ref=pd_sbs_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=KQAKRQ6T6YQZKK1AT90Q
There is another newer translation marketed as ‘the best’ by Edith Grossman (I have a few copies of both). It’s not as good – although the only difference between these 2 translation is about 30 sentences or so – they make so much more sense translated by John Rutherford, and Edit G’s translation they sound awkward and lost in translation.
So I would definitely go for the Penguin Classic version – I have sent you the exact link above – they have a few Penguin versions too. This one was published in the US in 2003.
There are many more hints to support my theory above – i.e. lots of events that look like miracles, but turn out to be cleaver tricks – and they are exposed for all to see that ‘miracle’ is usually something else.
I had a similar event happen to me in London one night many years ago when I went to the cellar of the hotel on Bond St where I used to work as a night receptionist to pick some fresh croissants at 4.30 or so a.m. A week or so before a Sicilian friend told me that a room-service waiter died and I knew that old man and liked him. So as I was walking downstairs (and it was dark in the room-service area) I heard cups being moved and cutlery noise. I looked up and I saw a silhouette of a short old fat Sicilian looking man – exactly like the guy who died a week before. I picked my croissants and run upstairs where I woke up my Italian friend/co-worked who told me about the death. I woke him up and told him the old guy who died was downstairs preparing for his shift!! My friend almost fell of his chair laughing: “That’s his twin-brother!” I never expected an old room service waiter from Sicily to have a twin brother doing the same job in the same hotel in London. …if I did not have anyone to clarify – I would think it’s a ‘miracle’ of some sort even though I was never religions.
Cervatnes’ book is full of such demystifying of ‘miracles’ on top of other stuff. All to do with reverse-engineering and putting apart a dogma promoting un-reality.
Also the second part is very funny – especially after they meet the Duke and the Duchess – probably the funniest events ever written about
Cervantes said of his work Don Quijote, that it was not his child but a bastard son. He was referring to the Spanish Inquisition’s censorship of his work. In fact the work is a critique of Castilian nobility (hidalguismo). They had believed the lies which had inflated them.
Cervantes fills the work with coded messages and wordplay to fool and get past the state censors. Then in 16th century the idea of a ‘Spain’ controlled from Castile was just beginning.
I think that he was referring to the second book/part of DQ – it was published in 2 parts.
And he brilliantly managed to use that event sumo-style against the illegal fake DQ. There are many very funny and wise events that build onto that problem (with the illegal second part of DQ book).
He turned what happened in real life around sumo-style to profit from it – and actually some of the funniest jokes seem to have been inspired by that fake 2nd book.
Very brilliant and that’s probably the main reason why it feels so modern even 400 years later
PS
I did not clarify – the 2nd part of Don Q was published illegally by someone else even before Cervantes finished his own original 2nd part – that was what he was referring to I think when he said it was a bastard child.
But he intelligently managed to build that real-life event into his original 2nd book (once he published it) – in a very brilliant funny way. That’s why it feels so modern, surreal and funny – it has another dimension to it that i have never seen in any other book. A brilliant solution to a real – life problem – turned around so to profit from it.
“What happens when everyone starts pretending, imagining and lying to support other people’s delusions”
So well put!
It might also be called mass hysteria/mass delusion.
Except that I guess so many people are simply ignorant.
Yet . . . what are the latest figures from polls as to what percentage of Americans believes the official 9/11 story? And the official JFK narrative?
Does anyone know this?
In a way, given the nonstop onslaught of lies and distortions, it is incredible how many Americans do manage to see through the BS. Wasn’t that always a virtue of the “rube”? It would align with the idea that so-called “sophisticated” thinkers are the easiest to fool. In the Emperor’s New Clothes story, it is an innocent little boy who blasts through the mass delusion or mass pretense to avoid the sanctions of telling the obvious truth.
katherine
thank you Katherine – that’s been my theory for years – I have never seen anything similar written or said about DQ. I actually don’t know anyone who has read it -apart from my Serbian high-school friends – we had to read it long time ago – at the age of 15 – I did not understand anything and it was probably not a good translation – you will see in the foreword of that Penguin Classic translation why most translations were bad – John Rutherford explains it – it’s very interesting and a good metaphor for many other problems we have today.
I often come up with original interpretations (you would not believe how many times I was accused of plagiarism while doing my degree in psychology in England) – people marking my assignments just could not believe I could come up with such interpretations) . And I could not believe that they could not believe…I often had to complain to the director of course.
I think Cervantes was ridiculing Chivalry. i just read Leon Gaultier’s book Chivalry. If i remember correctly by the 12th and 13th centuries it was already corrupt. In the 13th century the Mongol invasions annihilated the aristocratic class it was based on and made way for the Renaissance. See Jack Weatherford re: Ghenghis Khan. Speaking of the Emperor’s New Clothes i am still reeling from the overturning of my schooling. Take for example Preparata on the WWs. Someone once gave me a book by one, Sam Harris; all about religion or God; it made me puke. I was taught Cervantes’ Don Quixote was the first novel, but i couldn’t read it. For me these are issues for which satire is repugnant. What I really think still eludes my facility with language. Neither Christian nor atheist….just a jack russell who would still love to bite Descartes in the face.
2 planes are supposed to have taken down 3 buildings. Even the math doesn’t add up.
This is a great movie with a lot of technical info. What a blunder by the BBC to announce the collapse of the building 1/4 hour before it actually happened!
What makes no sense is how planes, made from aluminium, can penetrate buildings made from concrete and steel. Kinetic energy had nothing to do with it, as those planes had jet engines and not rocket ones, giving them limited speed. Not only did the noses of the planes penetrate the buildings, but their bodies, wings, even the small tails. How is that possible ? Did we see real planes make penetrations, or were those holograms ? As for Building No. 7, was that the command post for the entire hoax, destroyed after the job was done ?
All nuclear power plants are built to withstand airliners from penetrating the domes.
Thus, planes at 450-550 mph are powerful due to speed and weight and mass. It’s been known and engineered for over 50 years.
Real planes did penetrate both World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2.
The building cores were made of concrete and steel and there was virtually nothing left of those cores leading to the question of “what destroyed the cores” but that’s a separate question. However the planes penetrated the building walls which were steel-framed but without concrete. A high-velocity aluminum projectile (the planes) can and did penetrate the steel framing just as a soft lead bullet (or a copper-jacketed lead bullet) can penetrate a steel plate if the bullet is going fast enough. I’ve seen many 22-caliber (.223 and 556) copper-jacketed lead bullets from AR-15 rilfes penetrate 1/4-inch thick hard steel plates. The high velocity of the bullet possesses sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate the plate. As for Building 7, yes, in my opinion, that was the command center for the entire hoax and that’s why it too was intentionally brought down after the “job was done” on Buildings 1 and 2. Building 7 also supposedly contained the 2nd largest CIA station post after CIA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Well, I would like to remind you what the architect of the World Trade Center has said numerous times, namely that they took into consideration the fact that a plane could accidenty hit the Center, and they thus made the World Trade Center STRONGER that it had to be. I still have to be convinced that aluminium made planes could have penetrated those two buildings.
Yes; the buildings were strong however the primary strength was in the core of WTC 1 and 2. The core was the strong “spine” of each building that supported all the floors. Both cores were completely demolished by first detonating explosives in the basement thus blowing open the building core’s elevator shafts. This took place (oops) just before the planes hit the top of the buildings. Once the elevator shafts in the core were opened (and later in the scenario after the fires had burned for a while) a small (10 kiloton, if memory serves) nuclear device placed in the bedrock, below ground beneath each building was detonated. Simultaneously, (building detonations are computer controlled) explosives that had been pre-placed (Thanks, Israeli “art students”) on many floors were detonated starting from the top of the building, moving downwards. The nuclear blast was funneled upward through the building core(s) by the below-ground bedrock effectively vaporizing the concrete and steel building core. The floors collapsed downward as 1) the core was vaporized and 2) the steel frame supporting each floor was detonated. The official “pancake collapse” theory is baloney. The simultaneous upward building core vaporization and the downward floor-by-floor detonation explains why the building collapsed “from the top down”. Oh, and what about the planes? They were merely a distraction; a convenient narrative but they didn’t play any significant role in the building collapse.
The USA, and the rest of the world, has been tiptoeing past the graveyard ever since 9/11.
We do not dare look to see what is in the graveyard.
It would bring down the government.
So, best not to look.
I wonder where the “unraveling” that Ketchum (is that his name?) mentions is taking place. In the public? In branches of the government? In other countries? The official narrative has been recognized as being weak to the point of ridiculousness for years. Ketchum doesn’t really say anything new. But he does strongly suggest the fear that motivates potential whistleblowers to stay mum. One of the experts cited in the film, the Dutch engineer, Danny Yawenko, died in a car accident . . . Before he died he made this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA
It has English subtitles, but you don’t need subtitles to understand “Dar var controlled demolition.”
Ketchum also does clearly call out the ludicrousness of the NIST positions. To me, the videos of the NIST speakers speak volumes. Especially adding the “warning” directed to potential dissenters that these studies are based on science is a clear signal that has a name (that I don’t recall) in witness/statement analysis. That is, when a interrogee provides additional information that rebuts a question or statement that has not been posed or asked. Kind of “freelances” by mentioning stuff that the person unconscioiusly connects to, say, the crime. A fancy version of “the lady doth protest too much.” The speaker *knows* that what lies behind the report is *not* science. One of the the other NIST guys was quite openly defensive to the point of appearing almost pugnacious. I would love to see these videos subjected to statement/content analysis by an experienced police analyst.
BTW, it is the same dynamic with the JFK assassination. The official story “unraveled” long ago, but no heads have rolled. Tiptoeing past the graveyard, for going on fifty years now.
Katherine
Good points he makes. However, all of it had been pointed out in great detail by many engineers, physicists and other scientists before
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
9/11:Explosive Evidence – The Experts Speak Out (2012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
Professor Graeme MacQueen analyses 1st responders testimony (10 min). Just this testimony alone is enough to dismantle the entire official narrative
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwQa5eokieY
911 Blueprint for Truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBG-i2SbVgs
We know that, Anonymous. But that isn’t the point!
The distinction is that Peter Michael Ketcham worked for NIST at the time and was dead asleep at the time and yet woke up out of his highly qualified, but nevertheless dead asleep mind control trance..
The impatient will say “So what? There are STILL a lot of people in that trance (including many who will say without shame, “Don’t tell me ANYTHING about it. I DON’T WANT to know!”). So, I’m not impressed. Until full disclosure is presented to me like an ice cream sundae with a cherry on top, I’m not buying that anything significant has been done by any truthers, including this guy, and I don’t see that I could do anything to change that either. “
Such people are in the worst trance of all, Anonymous. Clearly the dam of damning evidence against the inside job traitors and their disgustingly immoral and cowardly cover-up artists has taken a lot of very serious hits and this is another one.
The task is to keep hitting until the dam breaks, not to just “get tired of it all.”
JEEZ!!!
What if I group of 20 or 100 MORE present or past NIST employees and specialists were inspired by Ketcham to join him, or even reveal more, about how Shyam Sunder agreed to sell his soul to the devil and utter his SHAM b.s. report while expecting his colleagues and the rest of the world to “blue pill it” and gobble up the bovine excrement like millions of dung beetles??
What if things get to critical mass because of Assange leaks or Weinstein or Podesta or who knows what infighting?
I think Robert David Steele at least has the right approach with congress: Full Amnesty for any compromising black mail material on them if they will identify the blackmailers that set them up.
Don’t let the dam break unless you helped break it. Otherwise, it is true to say that your lack of will and courage kept it standing years longer than it might otherwise have crumbled.
Your links are good but don’t just preach to the choir here.
People out there are ready to rally to the “certain trumpet” much, much, much more than 5 or 10 years ago. Or even 1 year ago before Hitlery was destroyed.
Ergo fatigue or “Ho hum, what else is new?” boredom is most inappropriate.
I agree with you, this vid is important. A good one to share with skeptical friends and family. Not everyone has the time to go into the bottomless cavern of excellent research and it’s also important who’s saying what.
thanks for sharing – very interesting link (the 9-11 one). I forwarded it to a friend who is one of world’s best structural engineers
The question is why and who benefits……
That’s easy. The day after, in an interview in the NY Times, no less, Benjamin Netanyahu was asked his opinion and he blurted out, “It’s very good!”, then realizing he was spilling the beans, went on to say, “not very good but it will create sympathy for Israel”.
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/its-very-good-recalling-benjamin-netanyahus-words-day-911-attacks.
His total lack of empathy for the victims essentially proves his motive. Events since then have only reiterated his statement then.
Was it an inside job? If you want to know what the devil would do, just ask yourself what the most absolutely unthinkable, vile, corrupt, awful, unbelievable, and evil possibility would be. Then accept the fact that he has likely already done the very thing, or worse. So, is it possible? I would say so.
I suprised at the lukewarm feedbact to this video.
This post should be ringing up tons of comments based on the topic being discussed and the questions it raises not just for Americans but all of us.
Who were the persons that plotted and perpetrated this monstrous crime against humanity?
What were/are their motive(s)?
Why has so many gone to great lengths to at the minimum look the other way or worked to cover things up?
Dont be like the useless eaters, wake up and ask questions and get mad as hell!!#
911 was a Zion job,
a grand, ritual psyop done deliberately so crude, so amateurish, so obvious, to make sure everybody could see through it with ease,
well knowing that figuring out the uncomfortable truth would put every single person in a huge dilemma – or in proper mind-control terminology – in a inescapable double-bind:
1)
If you go with what your instinct, intuition and intellect tells you, namely that you have witnessed a hoax of unimaginable proportions, you risk to be ‘punished’ by family and society and become an outcast.
2)
If you go with the fallacious construct, the official narrative, Zion will allow you to stay in the ‘herd’, but from now on you will suffer from depression, mind fog, a sense of ‘loss of reality’, and cognitive dissonance.
Re: 1 and 2, ha ha, how right you are! You will definitely lose a lot of “friends”, friends with a small f. However, as Bon Scott observed, sometimes “being a bad boy ain’t that bad.” ;)
The “lukewarm feedbact to this video” is probably due to the fact that a lot of frequent readers of the Saker’s blog don’t believe in the official story of 9/11, and the video isn’t new. I saw it or another one with Peter Michael Ketcham in it some time ago.
BTW, does anyone know what BBC had to say about its blunder that Serbian girl referred to above?
HI TNY,
here is the BBC’s official explanation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
In short, 9/11 was a chaotic day, they no longer have the original tapes to double check, mis-communications happen all the time, it’s just a small error, not a conspiracy, blah blah..
The link you provided is unusually inept cheek even for the beeb. I love how they provide no evidence, none at all. “Dog ate my homework” level sophistry. And a Youtube commentator making fun of conspiracies. Oh, and we’re terribly sorry, but we lost the tapes due to a “cock-up”, not, repeat not, a conspiracy.
The beeb is quite good at manufacturing conspiracies every day, including that “documentary” on Syria that they never bothered to explain. Do their geniuses think it’s still 1974, tra la la, ignore it and it will go away? It’s 2017 — World’s changed.
There have been rare occasions where stories have disappeared from, Radio 4, to be replaced by repeating loops saying “this story has been removed”.
Did you ever see that RT anniversary panel when a lady from the BBC claimed that there was no editorial supervision, because their overseas broadcasts speak many different languages? That was also another laff riot.
To mad as hell
I don’t understand that so many people still comment on a thing that as every person in good physical and mental health know was a zionist plot from A to Z and waist their time ah sh.t sorry i am again wasting my precious time
The King David Hotel was also blown up by Zionists posing as Arabs in 1948. Criminals who are not held accountable repeat the crimes.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.732876
The war on Islam: 9/11 revisited, uncovered and exposed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xMkk359nd0&t=10s
Who is really behind the Psyop 9/11?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ydPpQoMK7c