Welcome to the Political (pseudo-)Science department at 911 University. Here you can learn what all those other, scholarly-sounding, "Political Science" departments fail to mention, or just gloss over. Those lies of omission comprise a cornerstone of popular thought boundaries that enable a corrupt world in which high crimes and treason like 9/11 can not only occur in broad daylight on national TV, but without any honest investigation.Obviously, for a Big Lie as monstrous as 9/11 to remain standing requires at least one lie bigger than 9/11 to also/already be in place. The entrenched fraudulent U.S. political duopoly, with its fake phony staged limited political opposition, is one such lie. (Another is the way professional professors of political science ignore this scary reality. Another is the way professional journalists also remain mum...)
Students of 9/11 will recall that on December 4, 2001 and again on January 5, 2002, then-President George W. Bush took questions from the public about how he'd learned about 9/11. In his responses, Bush made statements which clearly indicate that he'd been in the loop, via video, on the opening salvo of the 'secret' 9/11 attacks that morning! He twice said that he'd seen, on TV, video of the first WTC aerial impact, before he entered that Florida classroom at 9 am! Good students of 9/11 will remember that there was no video of the first WTC aerial impact available until after midnight that night. So Bush's statements are either wrong or very revealing -- just because none of us could possibly have seen the only known video of that 1st impact on TV that morning does not mean that POTUS could not have had access to some other, unknown, video on a communications channel of which most people are unaware.
Good students of political 'science' will recognize that either Bush is the only person who forgot how he leared about 9/11 (and did so by vividly recalling a non-existent video), or else had revealed the existence of a video which ought not to exist if 9/11 was truly a 'surprise' 'secret' 'terrorist' attack; a video of which We The People were otherwise completely unaware. Either way, honest Constitutional political opponents and allies alike have no choice but to question Bush's well-documented little-reported revealing statements.
The fact that neither the media (mainstream or 'alternative') nor the policians who inhabit (infest) our government are willing to acknowledge or question Bush's 9/11 witness statements is, unless one's vision is still clouded by shock&awe or distorted by the aberration of hate, very revealing of the true nature of the established (corrupt entrenched) U.S. political system (and mass media).
It is therefore a hypothesis of the 911 University Political 'Science' Department that the 'opposition' between Democrats and Republicans is not genuine, but fraudulent.
If this hypothesis is true and correct, then there should be historical evidence, a pattern of occurrences -- probably seriously under-reported and little known -- that suports it. And there is.
Another Big Lie of omission by political science departments is the fraudulence of the modern U.S. so-called left-right political spectrum. Beyond the fradulent, staged nature of the supposed opposition between Democrats and Republicans, there is the dishonest hijacking of any real left-right paradigm itself.
Remember that no 1-dimensional political spectrum can be capable of categorizing all political thought. But if one considers the fundamental concern we all share for finding and maintaining a good balance between rights/protections and freedoms/liberties, then, when it comes to governing people, the oldest, most basic left-right dipole originally looked something like this:
ANARCHY <-----------------> THE KINGAnarchy, or self rule, represents total freedom -- everyone can do whatever they want, including to others. Which means no rights/protections from others. With totalitarian rule, nobody can do anything without consent of the government. When one person makes all the rules, "We The People" no longer exist, and we're back to the Middle Ages. If the totalitarian government has your best interests at heart (yeah, right!), that could theoretically give you maximal protection (though that's not the same as rights), but minimal individual freedom.
Keeping in mind that the whole notion of a 1-dimensional political spectrum is nonsense, here is a commonly-held view of some broadly-accepted terms for some ideologies somewhere supposedly along this make-believe dipole, in the form of an ordered list from wikipedia:
far Left <-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> far Right
Anarchism - Marxism - Communism - Socialism - Social democracy - Liberalism - Christian democracy - Conservatism - Nationalism - Fascism - Nazism
The problem is that those opposing needs and desires are not being represented by Republicans and Democrats, even though coincidence may occasionally and accidentally make it seem otherwise -- lots of posturing goes on to try to make it easy to differentiate the 2, in order to make it appear that they are different, and must be honestly opposing, or at least rivaling, one another. Meanwhile, politicos in the media and political 'scientists' make it seem like it's some kind of democratic imperative for responsible U.S. citizens to take sides in an endless parade of orchestrated distractive diversionary divisive political arguments undertaken by Ds and Rs. But as long as We The People are divided and distracted and diverted, and pulling against one another thanks to hot-button wedge issues, and focused on "the other side" (especially while worrying about wicked witches and flying monkeys and shadowy enemies halfway around the world), it is very easy for us all to find ourselves being inexorably pulled towards having a unitary Executive, an individual with practically unlimited king-like powers, perhaps without many people realizing it (or minding it!):
D ->| ANARCHY <-------------+-----> UNITARY EXECUTIVE |
R ->
When they 'both' seem to be edging sideways, orthogonal to the expected paradigm, that is an indication that We have not been observing them using the correct, most accurate paradigm. Or else the supposedly-more-Leftist Democrats continually comprise fake opposition that simply doesn't pull back, away from having a rightist Unitary Executive. Either way, this means the same Republicans and Democrats we trust to safeguard our freedoms are merely posturing -- playing roles in a false, skewed, bizarre, distorted, dishonest (and corrupt) version of an honest left-right rivalry or struggle. Few if any of them mind if those in power accrue more power. Neither Democrats' nor Republicans' positions always withstand scrutiny when measured against any kind of honest symmetrical political dipole. Obviously, neither party is truly interested in representing the needs of We The People, or in honoring the demands of Our Constitution. Because if they were, for one thing, Bush's very interesting public 9/11 witness statements would long ago have been publicly heeded and questioned and investigated...
So if the current U.S. political system consists of bad actors in a false struggle, what's going on? How could it be that elected Democrats and Republicans -- whom certainly often seemed to oppose one another, and whom We pay and entrust to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic -- aren't upholding their Constitutional oath, are colluding with one another in extra-Constitutional matters (ie, treason), and yet We are not being told about it?
Certainly the media is complicit in this, as are the individual actors. But here is where political science departments at all accredited colleges and universities lie by omission, thus enabling the lie to persist.
See, the background, the predicate, at least for the left-right dipole pictured above, is that in a land of the people, by the people, and for the people -- a supposed democracy -- the desire to find a good balance between rights and freedoms would inevitably result in a balance, or struggle, between the needs and desires of the individual with the needs and desires of the State.
But a 'funny' thing happened along the way towards finding an equilibrium: that struggle was forfeited. To corporations. This amounts to another orthogonal shift.
And when you have a nation of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, you do not have [a] democracy. What you have is fascism. Fascism is a very powerful form of government, antithetical to democracy. (So please don't expect, or wait for, the corporations that print our textbooks and feed us our news, or the intellectual prostitutes -- including media "journalists" who are subservient to those corporations -- to provide We The People with such a useful, revealing, powerful label.) With Democrats and Republicans, we now have the party of big corporations, and the party of bigger corporations. We have fascism! Note that We suddenly have corporations "too big to fail", sitting atop an economy which no longer serves We The People, but which We serve, via the privately-owned government (...the Federal Reserve, to which the federal government is wrongfully yet deeply indebted, is not part of, nor is it subservient to, the federal government, a situation which totally blurs the line between huge wealth and The State).
Fascism began, in part, by blurring the line between government and large corporations. Back then, nations controlled most of the wealth. Now corporations do. That is how the tail wags the dog nowadays compared to early renditions of fascism:
The fact that the USA has fallen prey to the insidious lures of fascism, and is exhibiting typical fascist predatory behaviors (both against other nations and upon its own citizens), and has largely abandoned its Constitution, and is now a renegade, is not being widely discussed by politicians or by professors at colleges and universities or when they appear on the corporate mass media. For the most part, they just pretend that the USA still is, same as always, a law-abiding Constitution-honoring democratic republic with an honest political system, even though most of them surely know better.
Just as some immense corporate financial institutions have been deemed "too large to fail", there are some monstrous popular lies that seem to have been deemed too large and entrenched to be revealed to We The People, who for generations have been systematically disinformed by the government, media, and colleges/universities alike.
As long as We The People continue to prove unable to think for ourselves, and to think our way out of those paper bags, and to respond appropriately, the steady diet of huge lies and monstrous deceit (and intellectual bondage and financial enslavement) will continue.
See what happens when We The Sheeple let college professors do all our heavy thinking for us? College professors, in exchange for their cushy jobs, make it possible for people to go on believing huge, even impossible, horrible lies. They just lie by omission -- they willfully ignore certain truths, including an important corollary of The Golden Rule: that with knowledge comes responsibility.
Moral: intellectual capacity is no guarantee, or even indicator, of intellectual integrity. Just because a professor is smarter than you and/or knows more than you does not mean that that person is necessarily sufficiently honest and trustworthy to never keep you from becoming aware of certain thoughts and revealing information of vital importance to We The People and to the survival of Our experiment in democracy.
Conversely, just because a large number of intellectuals (intellectual prostitutes) continually refer to constructs such as "Left-Right" and "Muslim hijackers" and "al Qaeda" as if they are serious and meaningful does not necessarily make them true or even real.
comments/inquiries:
site.feedback-PoliSci{...xX/@\Xx...}911u.org
![[Home]](menu/mb-admin.gif){kind=small}
![[Academics]](menu/mb-acad.gif){kind=small}
