Main menu

Too Monstrous

(originally launched into cyberspace on 09/22/2007)

Being evil has its advantages, one of which is that good people,
who don't think like deranged psychos, can be taken off guard
because they imagine others to be like them. For example, consider
the ever-popular plot for a horror movie: the kind-hearted soul
who, out of pity, picks up the rain-soaked hitchhiker (who also
happens to be an axe murderer). Us good folk don't WANT to suspect
everyone of being a villain, and we don't EXPECT them to be,
either. And when you're talking about "respected" people in
positions of great power, then we REALLY don't want to consider the
possibility that they may just be well-dressed axe murderers. But
if we are incapable of considering the possibilities of what evil
people might do, what kinds of things they are capable of, then we
allow ourselves to be vulnerable.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a
conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." [J. Edgar

As a result, when someone brings up some "conspiracy theory,"
suggesting that people in "our" government have committed theft,
torture, murder, etc., part of us doesn't WANT it to be true. We
WANT to be able to dismiss it as nonsense, rather than face the
possibility that there are some people with a LOT of power who
don't at all mind torturing and killing other people.

Recently a story broke--though not very loudly in the mainstream
media--that six nuclear warheads had been "accidentally" flown from
North Dakota to Louisiana. ("Oops, how did that get in my
suitcase?") Some have argued that that simply can't happen
"accidentally," and have gone on to suggest that the nukes may have
been intended to be part of a surprise nuke-attack on Iran. (The
feds say the nukes were about to be "decommissioned.") Well,
someone in the Air Force spilled the beans, and the military higher-
ups feigned shock and outrage, and said the matter would be

By itself, that story could be a toss-up: was it something devious
or was it incompetence--each of which the government has plenty of?
However, several air force folks from the two involved bases (Minot
in North Dakota and Barksdale in Louisiana) have since turned up
dead. Oh, and that was all "accidental" too. The following link
lists those who have died, with links to the "mainstream" stories
about the deaths.

Now, there are two ways people can react to all this:

1) Um, it must just be coincidence--are you alleging some sort of
conspiracy!? Are you saying OUR government would kill Air Force

2) There is no way that's a coincidence, but what does it mean?

The second is the rational response, while the first is wishful
thinking bordering on insanity--and it's probably how most
Americans would react. If those in power can kill off several
people with obvious ties to a recent, serious "incident" WITHOUT
causing widespread public suspicion and outrage, well, then this
country deserves to be enslaved.

If people won't LET the rational part of their brain function,
because of what it might conclude, we're in really bad shape. I'll
give an example, which is pure speculation. I'm not pretending to
have a shred of proof or evidence that the following happened; my
purpose is merely to suggest the possibility, so you can see how
YOU instinctively respond.


In an unheard-of "mistake," several nukes--warhead and trigger
together (though not "armed")--get flown across the country.
Shortly thereafter, several Air Force personnel from the two bases
involved then die in different "accidents." If they were killed--
which seems pretty likely--WHY were they killed? Well, it could be
that it was for exposing a blunder--moving the nukes improperly--
but that seems pretty unlikely. What's the point of killing people
AFTER they spill the beans, especially if they can be identified as
the ones who did the bean-spilling?

It seems more likely that folk would be killed to STOP them from
saying something. But saying what? It can't just be the "accident,"
because someone already exposed that. Might it be that the Air
Force folk were about to publicly complain about the U.S. planning
to nuke Iran? It's possible, but really darn unlikely. First of
all, the possibility of an attack on Iran is being widely discussed
already. Exposing such a plan wouldn't surprise anybody. Second, it
would be a huge "breach of national security" for a soldier to
release such information, and he would be locked up for a very long
time (or possibly executed for treason). Third, folks in the
military believe in chain of command, and pride themselves on their
loyalty to "authority"--it takes a LOT to have them disobey orders.
Would they do it to expose a possible strike on Iran, which would
probably just happen anyway?

So what would make several Air Force folk say something the powers
that be REALLY didn't want said--something serious enough that the
"government" would murder its own to keep it quiet? And remember,
it wasn't just ONE guy, and to make a bunch of different military
folk publicly "squeal" would take something pretty darn bad.

How about plans to nuke a U.S. city? That's pretty bad.

Like I said, I'm making a wild guess here, for the purpose of
testing what YOU are willing to consider, and what you dare to
think about. So I'll leave you with two questions:

1) On a scale of one to ten, how likely is it that U.S. officials
would be willing to nuke a U.S. city to get public support for
another war, declaring martial law, or something of that nature?

2) What is the basis for your answer to the first question?

Too many people throughout history have naively declared, "That
can't be happening in MY country! MY government--my countrymen--
wouldn't do THAT!" And so they chose to remain blind to the horrors
of "authority" in action. And, in all likelihood, the American
public will do the same.


Larken Rose