Simulacra, Simulation, False Flag, Mass and Elite Manipulation
Yes Mass manipulation, and « middle class » manipulation : even if you think nobody could be manipulated : we all are manipulated : do you created your own desire and your own personnality ? Nobody does.
If you realized it, maybe you can talk about it, think about, think about your freedom, and maybe 9/11
Let begins :
« The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth–it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true. » First words in the book « simulacra and simulation » , a phrase from the holy bible.
In other contexts, do you know :
“But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence . . . truth is considered profane, and only illusion is sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.”
In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation.
Do you know the pervert guide to cinema ?
‘The problem is how do we know what to desire ‘
‘There is nothing natural about human desire’
‘Our desires are artificials, we have to be taught to desire’
‘Cinema is the ultimate pervert art. It doesn’t give you what you desire – it tells you how to desire’ – Slavoj Zizek
And On September 11 : » 9/11 DID NOT TAKE PLACE « (in the spirit of terrorism )
They are non-event, moreover they are simulacra of real clash, and maybe they are simulations of a real clash … THIS IS JUST A SPECTACLE FOR YOU, THE PEOPLE
Do you know the Vase of Soissons ; « One soldier however disagreed and crushed the vase with his battle-axe. Clovis at first didn’t react to this event and gave the broken vase to Remigius. One year later however he personally and publicly killed the crusher of the vase, using the soldier’s own axe. » The destruction of a symbol is FAR more important than the destruction of the reality
The simulation is before the real »
« With this reference he turns his attention to the model builders, the simulators, identified above as the destroyers of a viable relationship between the real and the simulated. The simulators are imperialistic in that they « attempt to make the real, all of the real, coincide with their models of simulation. »  In doing so, they destroy « the sovereign difference » between the map and the territory, the simulation and the real. He refers nostalgically to « the charm of abstraction » which has been lost along with the sense of difference between the two–« the poetry of the map and the charm of the territory. »  These simulators operate on « nuclear and genetic » principles, not on the older principles, which were « specular and discursive. »
This, Baudrillard wrote, is « the most beautiful allegory of simulation. »
« Today abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory — precession of simulacra — that engenders the territory, and if one must return to the fable, today it is the territory whose shreds slowly rot across the extent of the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges persist here and there in the deserts that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself. »
Slavoj Zizek took that last bit as a title for a post-9/11 essay: « Welcome to the Desert of the Real, » which was previously used by Larry Fishburne’s character Morpheus in The Matrix. Zizek applies Baudrillard’s ideas to the World Trade Center attacks, via The Matrix:
« When the hero (played by Keanu Reeves) awakens into ‘real reality,’ he sees a desolate landscape littered with burnt-out ruins — what remains of Chicago after global war. … Was it not something of a similar order that took place in New York on September 11? Its citizens were introduced to ‘the desert of the real’ — for us, corrupted by Hollywood, the landscape and the shots of the collapsing towers could not but be reminiscent of the most breathtaking scenes in big catastophe productions.
Which is to say that the simulation preceded the real. The towers being hit by airplanes and then tumbling into rubble were not so amazing because we couldn’t believe it was happening, but because we’d seen it before in movies.
[This, incidentally, is why 9/11 movies like Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center appalled me: they’re effectively simulations of a reality which had already been simulated in film before the fact, and then relived (re-simulated) in endlessly cycling news reels. Why on earth would we all need to see a weak dramatization of events we all lived through, a dramatization that brought us no new insights?]
In the introduction to 1998 book called Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science, Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont wrote:
Our goal is precisely to say that the king is naked (and the queen too). But let us be clear. We are not attacking philosophy, the humanities or the social sciences in general; on the contrary, we feel that these fields are of the utmost importance and we want to warn those who work in them (especially students) against some manifest cases of charlatanism. In particular, we want to « deconstruct » the reputation that certain texts have of being difficult because the ideas in them are so profound. In many cases we shall demonstrate that if the texts seem incomprehensible, it is for the excellent reason that they mean precisely nothing.
That was referring to Baudrillard, Jacques Derrida, and other, mostly French theorists, many of whom were more popular in America than in France.