This is what simplistic researchers miss: the function of macabre arrogance thumbing its nose at us while we do nothing except spread the tale of their immunity and invincibility further. That is the game plan operant here.
To the belief system of the modern man it sounds too crazy. Why would the perpetrators want their secrets revealed after the fact? ... This question can only be definitely answered if one has an understanding of the zeitgeist which overseers in the cryptocracy have partly manufactured and partly tailored their own operations to coincide with. As I've pointed out, secrets like this were rarely revealed in the past because traditional people had not yet completed the alchemical processing (of mind control). To make such perverse, modern revelations to an unprocessed, healthy and vigorous population possessed of will, memory adherence to their deepest inner intuition and intense interest in their salvation, would not have been a good thing for the cryptocracy. It would have proven fatal to them.
But to reveal these after-the-fact secrets in our modern time, to a people who have no memory, no willpower and no interest in their own fate except in so far as it may serve as momentary titillation and entertainment actually strengthens the enslavement of such a people.
See what Hoffman is saying here? The Power Control Group (Richard E Sprague's evocative term from The Taking of America, 1-2-3) occasionally chooses to tip its hand to us as a mechanism of control. In nature it would be a threat display, except the threat implied here is the confirmation that things are really as bad as we think, and we can't do a damn thing about it.
I'm thinking, for instance, of the casual bombshell that dropped a year after 9/11, that on the morning of the attacks the National Reconnaissance Office was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a government building. A "bizarre coincidence," it was called. Though I believe the "simulation" likely a cover story, it's not exactly a limited hang out, since they hung it out there all by themselves in an announcement for a Homeland Security conference. ("On the morning of September 11th 2001, [the CIA's John] Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day.") Until then, no one was pressing the 9/11 wargames angle. Since, Mike Ruppert and others have discovered about a half-dozen more, suspiciously and opportunely timed to the attacks. Letting slip the "simulation" story is a bit like Jack the Ripper writing Scotland Yard and enclosing a portion of his victim's liver. Catch me if you can!
I'm thinking of the FBI promoting agents who deliberately inhibited pre-911 investigations, and its punishing those who saw it coming and tried to stop it. What message did this send, and could it be anything but the one intended?
I'm thinking of Michael Chertoff's appointment to Homeland Security, though he was accused of sabotaging the Department's "Greenquest" investigations into terror financing. I'm thinking of the appointment of Porter Goss to CIA directorship, though we know he'd met with 9/11 financier ISI Chief Mahmood Ahmed the morning of Sept 11, and his congressional seat encompassed the hijackers' Florida flight schools.
No administration has thumbed its nose more often, nor with as much feeling in our general direction, as this one. Its macabre arrogance contributes to a legend of invulnerability. That the White House can not only get away with it, but appear to revel in it, makes them seem untouchable. And yet, they aren't. And one of the reasons I believe this is Sibel Edmonds.
She can hurt them, and they know it. And they don't want you to know it.
From Saturday's New York Times:
The government has told a federal appeals court that a suit by an F.B.I. translator who was fired after accusing the bureau of ineptitude should not be allowed to proceed because it would cause "significant damage to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
Given what we already know Edmonds' knows, this is tantamount to an admission of guilt. As much as they might like to gloat in their High Mischief, it would seem some truths are too terrible to be aired just yet.
All this has reminded me of the film Cutter's Way.
It's been a while, but here's the gist: an emotionally crippled double amputee - a Vietnam vet - becomes obsessed with the thought that a local elite has murdered a young girl and dumped her body in the trash. He sets on a quixotic crusade to bring him to justice, dragging along his reluctant friend who'd rather not get involved. The two crash a society party and confront their suspect. In the context of his privileged world they appear crazy, even to themselves, and are treated as objects of pity.
But once the powerful figure is left alone in his study with the two eccentrics, his tone changes: "And what if I did?"
He shouldn't have asked. And Sibel Edmonds may yet cause Dick Cheney to harbour some regrets.