Thursday, March 30, 2006

A Mighty Wind

If a 110-story building suddenly collapses, and each floor "pancakes" on top of the one below, there would be a tremendous downward rush of air, right? The Twin Towers each weighed about about 100,000 tons. And the 9/11 Commission found that both towers collapsed in well under 20 seconds.

So that's alot of building falling really fast, right? Common sense tells you that there should be a tremendous downward wind as the building collapses, right? That makes sense. If a mountain suddenly collapsed, there would be a tremendous downward force created. And the Twin Towers were, in essence, man-made mountains.

Indeed, look at these photos of the collapses.

It looks like the force of air is down while the buildings are collapsing, right?

So far so good.

Well, look at these eyewitness reports:

In this video clip, a firefighter states "this, huge incredible force of wind and debris actually came UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground"

Another firefighter, in the second floor of the stairwell of one of the Twin Towers, said that described the wind was "fierce" and almost lifted his body, and he had to hold on to his helmet so it wouldn't blow off.

And a third firefighter described a "rush of air going up" when he was between the first and second floors when the building began to fall.


Doesn't this show that the collapses of the Twin Towers were upside down? Specifically, don't these strong upward winds tend to prove that powerful explosives were detonated from below the floors which the witnesses were on?

Remember, the official story is that each floor of the Towers pancaked down on the one below. That would have forced air straight down, and air probably would have "squirted" out the sides of the buildings when the downward force of wind became too great.

Can you think of a way that the collapses, if they were not brought about by explosives, would have created such huge upward winds? I dare you.

You might argue that the upward rush of air at lower floors was due to some type of outward expansion of the dust clouds as they reached the bottom of the buildings. However, an employee of an insurance company on the 67th floor of the South Tower (below where the airplane hit) heard an explosion from BELOW the impact of the airplane, an "exploding sound" shook the building, a tornado of hot air, smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying UP the stairwell, and the wall split FROM the bottom UP. This occured right as the plane hit the South Tower.


5 comments

Is the Bush Administration Too Incompetent to Have Carried Out 9/11?

When faced with evidence that elements of our own government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, millions of Americans smugly respond that the Bush administration was too incompetent to have done it. A common statement is "They're too incompetent to even win a war against a bunch of poorly-armed people; how could they have pulled off 9/11?"

Bush certainly acts like a bumbler and a good old boy. Cheney accidentally shot his hunting buddy. And Rumsfeld -- Secretary of Defense when 9/11 occurred -- apparently mangled the planning of the war in Iraq. Right?

Big Fish or Little Fish?

Before we get to whether or not Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were incompetent on 9/11, we need to distinguish between big fish and little fish. The way government actually works is that many government positions are filled by career civil servants, who stay through multiple administrations, both Democratic and Republican. In other words, there are some very powerful people within government who have been there for years, even if their face is never on television.

Therefore, even if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld knew nothing about 9/11, a rogue network of government employees could have carried out the attacks.

In fact, I have consistently argued that rogue elements of the government were involved in 9/11, not the whole government (there are many, many good people in government). Those people could have been highly competent, even if, for example, Mr. Bush himself is incompetent.

Indeed, very few people would argue that America's military leaders -- our generals, admirals and other top commanders -- are incompetent. We like to think that these military men are patriots. But the treason of even one of those leaders on 9/11 -- for example, the head of NORAD -- could have permitted the 9/11 attacks to succeed.

Are Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld Themselves Incompetent?

In addition, it is clear that Cheney has unprecedented power within the White House, and Bush would not even have had to have been on it for Cheney to have been able to pull it off. If you doubt that, take a look at this list to see how Cheney has coordinated illegal activities through his own office.

Moreover, as noted social historian and author Michael Parenti writes:
"Generally, US foreign policy is remarkably consistent and cohesive, a deadly success, given the interests it represents. Those who see it as repeatedly befuddled are themselves revealing their own befuddlement.

Sometimes the policymakers themselves seize upon incompetence as a cover. [For example, when the Iran-Contra affair was discovered, President Reagan plead incompetence.] His admission of incompetence was eagerly embraced by various analysts and pundits who prefer to see their leaders as suffering from innocent ignorance rather than deliberate deception. Subsequent testimony by his subordinates, however, revealed that Reagan was not as dumb as he was pretending to be, and that he had played an active and deciding role in the entire Iran-contra affair.

***

No less a political personage than Henry Kissinger repeatedly pretended to innocent ignorance and incompetence when confronted with the dirty role he and his cohorts played . . . ."
This strategy of "playing dumb" and acting incompetent has, in fact, long been employed by leaders on both the left and the right. Many liberals and old fashioned conservatives have been suckered by this dumb and dumber act.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

Let's take a look at the actual history of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for insight into whether they are incompetent leaders.

After Bush lost his bid for congress because he was perceived as an over-educated, "spoiled rich kid from back East", he cultivated a bumbling, "good old boy" image, and then started winning his political elections. That's right: Bush actually cultivated a bumbling, misspeaking mannerism.

Moreover, President Bush proposed painting a U.S. surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire from Iraqi military, as a way to justify war against Iraq. Is this the kind of proposal that someone who is incompetent would make, or is it the kind of thing a conscious deceiver would suggest?

Rumsfeld and Cheney are also long-time experts at using deception to justify their military and political goals. They were, in fact, the folks who intentionally hyped the Soviet threat during the Cold War so that the defense contractors would make a killing and the U.S. would have a suitably scary "bad guy" to rally against (see this article). These guys, like other neocons, are students of Machiavelli.

Remember how the TV character Detective Columbo pretended he was bumbling and dumb, so that people would underestimate him? Or remember the TV show Matlock, where Andy Griffith pretended to be a slow-witted country lawyer in order to put people off their guard?

I would argue that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have also used this same trick: playing dumb.

Prominent liberal figures and 0ld-fashioned conservatives have tried to warn others of the ploy. For example, liberal guru George Lakoff wrote an article in 2006 called "Bush Is Not Incompetent" which demonstrates that the Bush administration has been incredibly successful in implementing its agenda (the article is well worth reading for its evidence that Bush is not incompetent; however, I believe Lakoff confuses neoconservatism with true conservatism).

Similarly, in an article entitled "Bush Didn’t Bungle Iraq, You Fools", veteran investigative reporter Greg Palast says that the administration got exactly what it wanted from the Iraqi war. And popular liberal writer William Pitt says "the 'incompetence' thing is nonsense . . . Can anyone still think this was all by accident?". Pitt recognizes that the White House, rather than being incompetent, has gotten exactly what they wanted all along -- to invade Iraq, get a foothold in the Middle East and to get control of the oil.

Indeed, the neocons have openly advocated civil war and instability in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries as a long-range strategic plan.

Palast, Pitt and the neocons are speaking about Iraq and the Middle East. But their reasoning applies equally well to 9/11. See this article also.

I'm Smarter Than You

The problem is that those who are out of power -- Democrats and "paleo-conservatives" -- when faced with destructive policy decisions by the Neocons, grasp for an easy explanation. And incompetence fits the bill perfectly.

Indeed, I would argue that most Democrats -- when faced with the inconceivable harm which the neocons and their allies are doing to America and the world -- react with the comforting thought "at least I'm alot smarter than those bozos". Its human nature: putting the other guy down makes us feel better.

But this very human reaction causes us to ignore the actual situation: these folks are very dangerous, and they will do anything to consolidate and protect their power. Take a look at this list for example.

9/11

Given these facts, will you suspend -- long enough to actually look at the evidence -- the incorrect assumption that the current leaders are too incompetent to have facilitated the 9/11 attacks?

One place to start is by looking at the statements of highly-credible people who have said that the attacks could not have been the result of mere incompetence, such as:
See also this essay on "intelligence failures", this BBC film on intentionally exaggerating the threat of terrorists to manipulate people, and this essay on the use of false flag attacks by countries worldwide throughout history.




Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Global Warming: Cold Facts or Hot Air?

Preface: Whether you believe that man-made global warming is real or that it is a hoax being hyped by the government as an excuse to consolidate power and take away our rights, read on . . . I guarantee you'll learn something.

Colder or Hotter?

When I recently told a friend that a new ice age might hit Europe, she responded, "but its been warmer than normal there recently!" Similarly, when a place has experienced a cold snap, people scoff that global warming might really be happening.

So what gives? The world can't be getting both hotter and colder, right? Actually, if it gets hot enough, then it might get colder.

Here's why. If global warming heats up the oceans enough, then the "great conveyor belt" of warm ocean water can shut down. Here's a drawing of the great temperature conveyor belt.

If that happens, then the climate can abruptly change, and a new ice age could begin.

Sound far-fetched? The Pentagon doesn't think so.

There are many signs that the Earth is in fact getting substantially warmer. As just two of many examples, polar sea ice has failed to re-form for the second year in a row. And carbon dioxide levels are soaring (carbon dioxide raises the Earth's temperature since it is a "greenhouse gas" -- that is, it traps heat in the planet's atmosphere in the same way that greenhouses trap sunlight and keep the plants warm).

In fact, there is evidence that the great conveyor belt is already starting to fail. See also this article; and this one; and this one.

Man Versus Nature

If you've read this far, you might assume that I am arguing that the planet's temperature changes are all due to man-made pollution. Wrong!

In fact, a recent study shows that increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of the global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years.

Another study shows that solar activity variations have a "marked influence" on the Earth's climate.

And a third demonstrates that a dramatic thinning of the Earth's protective ozone layer above the Arctic last year was the result of intense upper-level winds and an extra dose of "space weather".

Scientists have also found that cosmic rays linked to global warming are increasing. The sun is simply getting hotter. Indeed, solar output has been increasing steadily ever since scientists have been able to measure it.

Not impressed yet? How about this: there is evidence of global warming on Pluto, on Mars, on Neptune's moon, and on Jupiter.

And guess what? The next "solar maximum" -- the 12-year peak of solar activity -- might be a really big one (see also this article).

So what does that mean? It means that our little planet is getting hit with both man-made and natural warming trends. Have you ever considered that? Have you heard any newspaper or climatologist say that?

Natural Variation

Some people argue that variation of earth's climate is natural, and has been occurring for millions of years, so we have nothing to worry about.

Well, of course that's true -- but its a dead-end argument. If a "natural variation" makes the Earth uninhabitable for humans, pets, or our favorite foods, then the fact that alot of it is caused by a "natural variation" is not very reassuring or helpful. It can be as natural as apple pie, but it may still be very deadly.

Moreover, arguing that variations in the Sun's output and other natural factors "disprove" man-made warming is like saying that studies showing smoking causes cancer disprove that car accidents can be fatal. If you smoke alot and drive recklessly, your chances of an early "retirement" quickly increase, don't they?

What Do You Think, Doctor?

If you smoked 5 packs of cigarettes and drank a fifth of scotch a day, were a couch potato who never exercised, ate only greasy fast food, worked at a highly stressful and thankless job, and had no friends or relationships, what would happen to your health?

I don't know. But if you went to your doctor, he would probably tell you that something would eventually break down, and you'd get sick.

The same thing is true of the weather. As much as we might like to think of the Earth as something we can control, it is a natural system, and if we assault it enough, we can say with pretty high confidence that it will destabilize.

As one example, if the Earth heats up enough through man-made greenhouse gasses and natural variations, the "great conveyor belt" might shut down, and the world's climate might destabilize.

Some temperate regions might be plunged into an ice age. Some warm areas might experience severe droughts and dust bowl conditions. All sorts of strange weather could occur all over the place.

This might sound strange and fantastical (at least until you've read the Pentagon report).

But I've been thinking about climate change for 20 years, and I would assert that this essay provides a more complete picture of the issue than you will hear from any climatologist in the world, since it takes into account more factors and includes more of the "big picture" than they are trained to analyze.

If your house is on fire, do you stand around arguing about whether the fire was started by "natural" lightning or by a dropped cigarette? No, you deal with the emergency. The same is true of climate change. Scientists might not understand the exact percentage due to man-made pollution versus natural variations, but they know that things are changing.

They might not even know exactly what will go wrong, just like the doctor might not be able to tell the patient who lives the extreme lifestyle whether he'll get liver cancer, lung cancer, have a heart attack or a stroke (but he can tell him he will eventually get very sick).

Should We Give Our Power Over to Big Brother?

No. Most modern governments have shown themselves as not having the best interests of the people in mind. Just look at all of the false flag operations they've pulled off recently. Indeed, the powers-that-be will do just about anything to maintain power and control and to prevent real empowerment of the people of the world. Should we trust these guys? No.

Indeed, the military is now starting to say that global warming is a national security matter. That means that the government can use global warming to suspend Constitutional liberties and rights guaranteed by law, and to exercise "emergency" or "police powers".

Indeed, well-known liberal Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now."
(page 388).

So the risk of an increase in fascist consolidation of power based on global warming is real. While we have to confront global warming, giving up our rights or power to do it is dangerous. We should not give into the military or Chomsky and the neoliberals' idea of letting Big Brother take care of it. Alex Jones, Michael Rivero and other conservative writers who warn against a power grab by the neoliberals based on global warming are right: we've got to protect our liberties and individual rights from those who want to use global warming as an excuse to implement totalitarian controls.

The trick is to battle global warming while maintaining our personal liberties and freedom. The task is to protect the livability of our climate in a way which does not strengthen the ruthless, dysfunctional governmental elements which are desperately looking for any excuse to consolidate their power.


10 comments

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Boomerang

I predict that CNN's decision to cancel actor Ed Asner and 9/11 author Sander Hicks is going to backfire.

I predict that the administration's attempts to stifle any real investigation into what happened on 9/11 is going to create a pressure-cooker which allows 9/11 truth to break out bigger than if a half-decent investigation had taken place.

I predict that the bad guys' attempt to punish any whistleblower -- such as Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright or Kevin Ryan -- that questions why 9/11 happened or criticizes the official story is going to boomerang when a high-level insider whistleblower decides to spill the beans to save our country from turning overtly fascist.

Let's make these predictions come true . . .


4 comments

Dear Government Employee

If you are a government employee or agent, please read this:

I have no intention to commit any acts of violence or threat of same against any persons or property, nor engage in any hate speech or give comfort or aid to the enemy. I know no one in the 9/11 truth movement who intends to commit any such acts.

My only intent is to help uncover and spread truth. My goal is merely to defend America. My strategy and tactics are non-violent. My motto is that the truth will set us free. If truth is illegal, then this country is no longer a free republic or a democracy. I was born in the U.S. and have lived here my entire life. I have never met a terrorist in my life.

Please take your oath seriously -- to defend our country against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Please do the right thing.

How do you know who domestic enemies are? They are the ones that violate the U.S. constitution and the 200-year subsequent body of law which defines the U.S.A. as a nation of laws. They are the ones who trade away our nation's long-term interests for their own short-term self interests and power.

How do you know who are good, patriotic Americans? They are the ones interested in assuring that our country is strong in the LONG RUN. They believe in democracy, liberty, freedom, and justice. They believe that the country is more important than the particular administration in power, and that each administration is legitimate only to the degree that it serves the interests of the nation.

I, and others like me, are like Galileo, trying to spread the truth. I hope and pray that you will respect a truth-seeker, such as Galileo, and will not act like the Church in killing Galileo for failing to adopt the lie that the Sun rotates around the Earth. If you persecute Americans for speaking truth, you are as bad as the Church for persecuting Galileo.

God bless you and thank you for serving your country.

This was co-written with my anon friend.


1 comments

Sound Bite

In this age of sound bites and fast-moving entertainment, many adults may have the attention-span of a child. Moreover, many people have such strong preconceptions about what happened on 9/11 that they will not listen to new information if you try to engage them in a long, rational discussion (they are too good at filtering out new information which comes in through normal channels).

So what's the answer?

Hit 'em fast and hard with a one-liner which makes a winning point in a humorous or unusual way, and so slips 9/11 truth in "under the radar" before they have a chance to censor it out.

Here are some readers' ideas for 9/11 sound bites.

JaneDoe says the following worked on her father after all the discussions of controlled demolition didn't:

"Why hasn't Bin Laden been indicted?"

Damien has a whole list:

"Mohammed Atta liked pork chops, did cocaine and had a stripper girlfriend. Muslim fanatics are all like that."

"The top floor of the WTC fell down in ten seconds. Wasn't it nice of all the lower floors to just get out of the way?"

"We couldn't stop the planes because the 911 Report insisted that the airforce radar towers were all pointing the wrong way."

"Planes never go missing over London, Frankfurt and Tokyo, but because we were busy on 9/11 we lost some and only found them an hour later."

"You know they found one of the hijacker's passports unmarked in the wreckage of the twin towers. Do you think they should return it to him?"

"Bush didn't leave Sarasota school till 9.30 because he only got the first news at 8.30 and the CIA warning from the month before had only mentioned multiple hijackings."

"When the government made the fake Osama confession video in Dec 2001 they didn't actually intend that you should look at it - you have looked at it haven't you?"

"Do you like it when people lie to you? Then why do you believe it when they tell you that Bin Laden confessed to 9/11?"

"VP Cheney watched flight 77 approach Washington from 50 miles out and he didn't lift a finger. But if he wouldn't discuss it with you I don't see why I should."

Somebigguy says that if he's having trouble getting a cell phone signal, he'll make the following comment to those around him:

"I'd probably get a good signal if I was 30,000 feet up."

Anonymous says

"Is it too late to get the evidence back from China regarding the biggest crime in history? Maybe the Chinese took better care of it than we did."

Ab has this:

" 'Hello, Mom, this is Mark Bingham'. What kid calls their mom and says THAT?"

Keep the one-line sound bites coming. And let me know which ones are "battle-tested" and really work in waking people up.

By the way, bb uses this sound bite:

"Why did the currency component of M1 grow so rapidly in August 2001?"

That's an awesome question, but probably requires a couple more sentences of explanation before people understand the implication.


3 comments

Monday, March 27, 2006

Time for the 9/11 Movement to Grow Up

I've remamed this essay "Eyes on the Prize", so the essay has been moved here.


10 comments

Eyes on the Prize

There are different "camps" in the 9/11 truth and justice movement, such as the "let it happen on purpose" (LIHOP) versus "the made it happen on purpose" (MIHOP) camps.

There are also many different personality types involved in this movement, and we often get on each others' nerves.

As someone who has participated in and observed this movement for a while, I estimate that we waste one-third of our time and energy unnecessarily fighting with each other rather than fighting to get the truth out there and working to impeach and jail those who carried out 9/11.

Its time to "grow up" as a movement, and -- in Webster Tarpley's words -- focus our energy "outward".

Hop To!

The LIHOP believers (I'll call them Ls for short) believe that Bush, Cheney and others intentionally "stood down" our air defenses on September 11, allowing the hijackers to slam into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Ls point to facts including: that the government had numerous warnings of imminent attacks; that fighter jets could easily have intercepted the planes under normal circumstances; and that there were numerous war games occurring on the exact morning of 9-11, all apparently under the control of Dick Cheney. The Ls believe that there is sufficient evidence that the government intentionally let the 9-11 attacks happen, that it would be careless and counter-productive to push any more controversial theories, especially when no structural engineers or airplane crash reconstruction experts have agreed with MIHOP...

The MIHOP faithful (let's call them Ms) believe that covert operatives brought down the World Trade Center Buildings and a portion of the Pentagon using one or more of the following: (1) explosives; (2) missiles; or (3) military aircraft. They point to facts including: no large commercial buildings had ever before collapsed due to fire; the firefighters' tapes show that the fires in and around the towers were not out of control prior to the collapse; many commentators initially stated that the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 looked just like controlled demolitions, with many reports of explosives by eye-witnesses; there is unusual seismic data associated with the collapse of the Twin Towers; the owner of the trade center admitted that he had WTC 7 "pulled", i.e. demolished with explosives; and the hole in and debris around the Pentagon does not appear in available photographs to be the wreckage from a large commercial plane.

The Ms believe that the physical and video evidence is a "smoking gun" which the government cannot refute with claims of innocent mistakes, and that it would be crazy not to publicize such evidence, since the video and physical evidence could be a "slam dunk" of success for the movement. Specifically, Ms argue that evidence of controlled demolition of the world trade center and other "physical evidence" can't be refuted, whereas LIHOP is a tough argument to make in court, because you need to show that the folks who carried out 9/11 INTENDED to let it happen, as opposed to just accidentally let it happen. This is tough to prove, say the Ms, since it requires proof of someone else's STATE OF MIND.

Some Ms also believe in more exotic theories, such as nuclear weapons in the Twin Towers, or the use of fake video images (I personally believe both theories are wholly incorrect).

The Ls accuse the Ms of being unscientific or flaky. And the Ms accuse the Ls of being part of a whitewash or a "limited hang out", an old CIA term for a fake but acceptable "fallback story". In other words, the Ms argue that if the LIHOP theory prevails, then the government will just continue to defend by saying – as the 9-11 Commission basically stated – that "mistakes were made, but no one is to blame."

Each side accuses the other of being part of a disinformation campaign and psychological operation by government covert agents. Specifically, Ls think that Ms are government plants spreading easily-disputable lies and faked evidence, so that – when they are eventually disproven - the whole movement will be discredited. They point to the historical record to show that the government planted a witness in the JFK assassination investigation, and when he was publicly shown to be lying - the whole investigation lost steam.

The Ms think that the Ls are government employeesand "gatekeepers", giving a back-up story in case the official story fails, so that they can then say it was merely an "accident" due to confusion and lack of foresight, so that the government can end the whole debate by saying "oops... we'll do better next time."

As someone who has friends of good faith in both camps, I think this is a fruitless dynamic which is preventing the movement from gathering momentum.

If you really think about it, MIHOP and LIHOP are two sides of the same coin:

Without a stand down, without the creation of false identities of patsies, without funding from bizarre sources, 9/11 couldn't have happened (LIHOP!)

Without the demolition of world trade center buildings 1, 2, and 7, Americans wouldn't have been traumatized to the point where they would give up their liberty, their freedom, and their brains and blindly follow a "strong leader" into Iraq, the Patriot Act, and policies of torture and illegal spying (MIHOP!)

What Leaders of the Movement Say

Here are the comments of 6 prominent 9-11 truth activists, some mainly in the MIHOP camp and some mainly in the LIHOP camp, on this dynamic:

- "It is clear to me that both sides are infiltrated by insiders who want to promote this split."

- "I don't understand why we have to choose sides. In my opinion we are all on the same side. We may have differences of opinion regarding certain facets of 9-11 but that's no reason why we have to attack others and impugn their integrity. I always thought we were on the same team."

- This is the old "divide and conquer" strategy which those in power have used for hundreds of years to squash truth and positive changes. If we don't focus on who the real enemy is and just bicker among ourselves, then we will all lose!

- Smearing the credibility of witnesses, instead of the facts which the witnesses point to, is a hallmark of government disinformation.

- In many movements that are attacking mainstream thinking, the different "camps" will tend to turn on each other instead of "keeping the eyes on the prize".

- "4 out of 5 dictators agree: divide and conquer works!"

We all agree that the stakes couldn't be higher. Certain extreme elements in our government created a second "pearl harbor" in order to promote their military, imperial, anti-democratic, oil-centered agenda. They killed 3,000 innocent people, and have declared war on freedom in America and abroad. If we don't mature as a movement so that we can succeed as a team, the future may spell additional false flag attacks and misery for many.

But the opportunities are also enormous. Remember the Chinese character for crisis means both "danger" AND "opportunity". If we are successful in spreading the truth that the government was actually responsible for 9-11, then democracy, justice, freedom and truth will have a chance to prevail. Remember, the struggle between repression and truth has been ongoing for some time. If we succeed we will be making history, because – unlike the Reichstag fire set by the Nazis to justify the crackdown by Hitler, or numerous other "unsolved crimes" and murders by the forces of repression - we have the chance to solve and prove the crime in real-time right now. This would be one of the most significant events in history, and WE have the chance to do it and to become heroes instead of victims.

One commentator has stated that 9-11 is the "Achilles heel" of the forces of repression, and that is why the covert operatives are working so hard to create a split where none need exist. To become a powerful movement, we need to keep our eyes on the goal and work together as a winning team.

This is not to say that righteous anger or the sword of discrimination are not required. Sloppy thinking is certainly a danger to the movement. But we need to distinguish between debunking a sloppy argument and dividing and conquering as a way to break apart the movement. Let's follow Professor Jones' approach: test any theory with scientific rigor, and drop those theories that don't hold up under scrutiny.

Big Tent or Lone Wolf?

Another debate centers around whether the 9/11 movement should take a "big tent" or a "lone wolf" approach. Groups like Scholars for 9/11 Truth have taken a big tent approach, where many different backgrounds and beliefs are represented.

On the other hand, on-the-ground activists like Jolly Roger have long argued that big groups can easily be infiltrated and neutralized. JR argues that activists should do there own thing individually, so that they won't be slowed down or stopped by the disinfo boys.

Why not do both? Support groups like Scholars for 9/11 Truth and also do your own thing on the side?

Eyes on the Prize

People bring different skills and styles to the table. Some have academic credentials. Some have impressive resumes or hands-on experience. Others have a talent for web research or great organizing skills, or the energy and passion to shake things up and make things happen.

Some are veterans of other peace or social justice movements, with wisdom to share which is worth listening to. Others are young, smart, and without baggage, and have an amazing ability to get things done.

There are a lot of different kinds of people involved in 9-11 activism, and learning to tolerate each others' styles -- even when totally repugnant and opposite from our own -- is vital if we're going to succeed as a movement. There are religious folks, spiritual folks and atheists. There are in-your-face New Yorkers and laid-back Californians. There are shoot-from-the-hip types and write-about-it-for-a-month types. There are the emotional and passionate and the coldly analytical. There are conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats, libertarians and greens. We've got to learn from each other and learn to tolerate each other. And each of these types are needed and contribute in their own way.

There are also power struggles within the movement. In addition to the power struggles initiated by government operatives trying to disrupt the movement, there are also plain old turf wars, where people are competing for funding, fame and glory. This is true for all movements, as people who have been involved in the civil rights, environmental or women's rights movements
can attest.

Some people known as Ls are really secretly M, but they think L has the best chance to get the public's attention INITIALLY, and that -- after we get their attention -- then we can bring up the M facts. So people may not be as one-dimensional as we assume.

I think we should back the efforts which currently appear to have the best chance of success. If a person or group is being successful in organizing and getting the public or media's interest, we should at least give some support. Even if we think that the person/group's strategy or vision is not ideal, as long as it is not disseminating lies, we should applaud any success to get the issue out there. The mainstream news media has been so terrible on 9-11 and the public kept so far in the dark and intimidated by alerts regarding Al Qaeda, that any success helps educate the public and boost the morale of the movement.

With that said, in internal discussions between 9-11 activists, debate and constructive criticism is necessary, and sloppy or incomplete thinking should rightly be pointed out.

Diversity in the movement is healthy. Several people wrote to stress that fact. I learned in my college ecology class that diverse crops survive crises better than monoculture crops. In the same way, diversity in the movement will help insure that we survive infiltration and attempts to break up the movement.

At the same time, we should stress alliances whenever possible. Alliances can be straightforward. For example, a L group can state of a M group's work: "If the facts are as [insert name of M group] says, then we would agree with their conclusion. Further investigation should be conducted to see if [M group's] facts check out." This does not undermine the L group's credibility, and at the same time, encourages further research into the M group's claims.

Similarly, M groups could say "we agree with [insert name of L group] that certain elements of the government intentionally let 9-11 occur. In fact, we go further, because we have evidence that proves that government personnel were actually co-conspirators in the attacks. Our evidence includes ...."

If we're smart about it, alliances will promote, and not detract from, our individual efforts.

And last, but not least, we have to face the paradox about timing. Many L groups point out that the movement has to go slow, to gather credibility, a popular following and strength. Many M groups point out that the U.S. is in for further false flag attacks, drifting towards overt fascism, and further imperial warmongering, and that it is now or never to get out the full truth and stop the juggernaut. I personally believe that BOTH perspectives are accurate. I think we need short- and long-term strategies simultaneously.

So the question becomes: How do we act with urgency to get something done now, before the next terrorist or false flag attack occurs (at which point many of our remaining liberties may be taken away), and yet act with the kind of careful, thoughtful deliberateness which can help to build a strong movement? This is a tension which -- with some creative dialogue -- may create an approach which addresses both concerns, so that the movement has a chance NOW of stopping and imprisoning the criminals who committed or facilitated 9-11 while building a strong, popular and credible movement.

Is that a paradox? Yup – deal with it! Life is full of paradoxes. Indeed, the ability to tolerate paradoxes is a hallmark of maturity. More importantly, it is usually a necessary ingredient for success.

Keep your eyes on the prize . . . and we will restore sanity to our country and our world, and usher in a new era of truth and true representational government such as has never been seen before.


This essay was co-written with a friend, who wishes to remain anonymous


1 comments

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Lost Its Sheen?

When the naysayers start yelling that Charlie Sheen isn't qualified to make the statements he's been making, counter with the fact that the experts HAVE been speaking -- for years -- but nobody has been listening.

Quickly run through this list:

- Former head of Star Wars and air force colonel, Bob Bowman

- BYU physicist Steve Jones and Clemson engineering professor Judy Wood

- Former high-level Reagan appointee and prominent conservative, Paul Craig Roberts

- Former U.S. congressman Dan Hamburg

- Former chief labor economist under George W. Bush, Morgan Reynolds

- Former high-level intelligence analysts, Ray McGovern and Wayne Madsen (who briefed presidents and vice-presidents)

You can say all of this to anyone in about 20 seconds, and wake most people up to the possibility that they've been fooled by the government and media.

If you have great one-liners which stop people in their tracks with the force of persuasion, please post them here.

The first part of this post was written by somebigguy, who summarized in one sentence what would have taken me three.


7 comments

Buycott

Now that CNN has broken the media boycott on 9-11 information with its 3 Showbiz Tonight programs covering Charlie Sheen, Alex Jones and other 9-11 leaders, it is time to reward CNN. How?

A buycott. A buycott is simply a reverse boycott: instead of saying we won't buy a company's products until they start acting responsibly, let's say we will buy their products as long as they KEEP acting responsibly. This is like the idea of the old-fashion Chinese doctor: he only gets paid if he keeps his patient well.

Specifically, here's the plan:

(1) Send a message to CNN thanking them for their fair coverage of 9-11 on Showbiz Tonight.

(2) In the "My comments" box (lower right), copy and paste this:

As long as CNN continues to cover the question of whether 9-11 was an inside job fairly and openly (on its news programs as well as entertainment programs) -- I pledge to make EVERY EFFORT to buy the products and services advertised on CNN whenever I have the choice.

(3) Give your real name and other information.

If enough of us do this, it will encourage CNN to "do well by doing good".

Pass this message on widely ... let's make this a viral campaign which causes a tipping point in spreading the truth.


6 comments

Two Futures




(Future #1)

We're sorry, but we didn't know that we were so close to the tipping point. We thought that it was a big world, and that we couldn't really have that much impact.

We'd never heard of the "great conveyor belt". That's such an awkward concept, and no one talked about it.

We didn't believe our own leaders could be so wicked.

We didn't realize what had really happened.

We didn't know that things would escalate so far out of control. We didn't see where we were heading.

We were caught up in our own lives. We were busy. We were scared. We thought that our government or the experts would take care of things. We thought a little money would shield us.

We're sorry we didn't do anything while there was still time.


(Future #2)

We dug deep.

We stood our ground.

We made it happen.

We discovered our purpose, our vision, and our courage.

We weren't alone ... we stood with many others, many friends, many people of good will

It wasn't easy. At times, we had to sacrifice, but we threw the bums out of office, and put the scoundrels in jail, and set things right.

We held the line and -- with passion and creativity -- we turned it around.

They said it couldn't be done . . . they were wrong.

We pitched in and did our part, -- and because of it -- you've inherited a beautiful, sane, free, just and healthy world.

We're proud
and grateful
that we chose this destiny



Two futures . . . our choice


3 comments

Friday, March 24, 2006

Newsworthy

Charlie Sheen has made big news by publicly stating that 9/11 was an inside job. The Sheen story has been covered in one form or another by many of the major entertainment shows.

However, most of the coverage has focused on Sheen's personality, and has studiously avoided discussing the specific facts and issues which Sheen actually raised.

Moreover, the news departments of the corporate media giants have so far boycotted the 9/11 and Sheen stories. For example, while CNN'S Showbiz Tonight has done an excellent job on the story, have you heard anything substantive from CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Lou Dobbs, or Paula Zahn about 9/11?

Its time to spread this from being an "entertainment" story to a "news" story.

Please contact as many news reporters and editors as you can and demand they cover the story. Demand they discuss the FACTS in a fair and balanced way, by interviewing the top experts in the field.

As a start, you can put the media in touch with some of the top experts in the field, people like Professors Jim Fetzer, David Ray Griffin and Judy Wood, former head of the Star Wars defense program Bob Bowman, former chief economist for the Labor Department under George W. Bush Morgan Reynolds, and former Congressman Dan Hamburg. Give them Scholars for 9/11 Truth's email to set up interviews: email@ScholarsFor911Truth.org

Here's where to find media phone numbers.

If you don't have time to call or fax, here is a list of some media emails to get you started (NOTE: you have to format these correctly for your email software, either with semicolons or commas between each address; I don't have time to do this):

city@thestar.ca
programn@citytv.com
ddraper@niagarathisweek.com
solutions@davidsuzuki.org
members@yto.greenpeace.org
sunnewstips@png.canwest.com
dean.kish@calgarysun.com
dana.hay@calgarysun.com
kerry.diotte@edm.sunpub.com
ghicks@edmsun.com
mjacobs@edmsun.com
mjenkinson@edmsun.com
terry.jones@edm.sunpub.com
hasbin@shaw.ca
mross@edmsun.com
stilley@edmsun.com
neil.waugh@edm.sunpub.com
mike.therien@ott.sunpub.com
mitchell.axelrad@ott.sunpub.com
lmcquaig@sympatico.ca
paul@axisoflogic.com;
michael.isikoff@newsweek.com;
woodwardb@washpost.com;
bill.oreilly@foxnews.com;
oreilly@foxnews.com;
executive-editor@nytimes.com;
managing-editor@nytimes.com;
jfarah@worldnetdaily.com;
tips@upi.com;
Hannity@foxnews.com;
michaelsavage@paulreveresociety.com;
drudge@drudgereport.com;
IHT@IHT.com;
editor@reuters.com;
moneyline@cnn.com;
Dean.Baquet@latimes.com;
bgertz@washingtontimes.com;
b.grueskin@wsj.com;
letters@nationalreview.com;
t.cullen@wsj.com;
j.heller@wsj.com;
nicholas.witchell@bbc.co.uk;
andrew.marr@bbc.co.uk;
matt.frei@bbc.co.uk;
mark.mardell@bbc.co.uk;
natasha.kaplinsky@bbc.co.uk;
richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk;
roger.mosey@bbc.co.uk;
john.irvine@itn.co.uk;
tom.bradby@itn.co.uk;
warrickj@washpost.com;
pincusw@washpost.com;
ottawayb@washpost.com;
marcusr@washpost.com;
leenj@washpost.com;
flahertym@washpost.com;
2020@abc.com;
abramsreport@msnbc.com;
60m@cbsnews.com;
dateline@nbc.com;
consortnew@aol.com;
axavila@telemundo.com;
mike@michaelmoore.com
rush@eibnet.com;
FOXaroundtheworld@foxnews.com; Viewerservices@foxnews.com;Comments@foxnews.com; Foxnewsonline@foxnews.com;foxfeedback@foxnews.com; Afterhours@foxnews.com;Foxreport@foxnews.com; Atlarge@foxnews.com;Hannity@foxnews.com; Beyondthenews@foxnews.com;Colmes@foxnews.com; Heartland@foxnews.com;Ontherecord@foxnews.com; Cavuto@foxnews.com;Patsajakweekend@foxnews.com; Dayside@foxnews.com;Special@foxnews.com; Forbes@foxnews.com;Friends@foxnews.com; Beltway@foxnews.com;Foxmagazine@foxnews.com; Myword@foxnews.com;Comments@foxnews.com; Oreilly@foxnews.com;Comments@foxnews.com; Warstories@foxnews.com;FNS@foxnews.com; Newswatch@foxnews.com;abouhalkah@kcstar.com; jadam@kcstar.com;eadams@kcstar.com; eadler@kcstar.com;talbright@kcstar.com; ralm@kcstar.com;manderson@kcstar.com; bbbabcock@kcstar.com;babson@kcstar.com; pbacker@kcstar.com;tbalandran@kcstar.com; jbarcus@kcstar.com;jbarker@kcstar.com; aaron@tvbarn.com;dbauer@kcstar.com; abavley@kcstar.com;mberg@kcstar.com; fblocher@kcstar.com;gbo oker@kcstar.com;dboone@kcstar.com; gborelli@kcstar.com;dbormann@kcstar.com; dboyce@kcstar.com;dbradley@kcstar.com; fbullers@kcstar.com;bburnes@kcstar.com; bbutler@kcstar.com;mcampbell@kcstar.com; scanon@kcstar.com;dcarroll@kcstar.com; bcarroll@kcstar.com;ccarter@kcstar.com; icarter@kcstar.com;hcasanova@kcstar.com; mcasey@kcstar.com;kcatalano@kcstar.com; schapman@kcstar.com;kchildres@kcstar.com; hchristopher@kcstar.com;chrostowski@kcstar.com; gclark@kcstar.com;dcockrell@kcstar.com; hcoggins@kcstar.com;jcollar@kcstar.com; kcollison@kcstar.com;dcooley@kcstar.com; bcooper@kcstar.com;ccoulter@kcstar.com; rcovitz@kcstar.com;ecraven@kcstar.com; bcronkleton@kcstar.com;acurry@kcstar.com; bdalton@kcstar.com;adarby@kcstar.com; mdavis@kcstar.com;mdearmond@kcstar.com; kdillon@kcstar.com;ldiuguid@kcstar.com; mdodd@kcstar.com;dolphens@kcstar.com; sdowns@kcstar.com;dutton@kcstar.com; jdvorak@kcstar.com;deames@kcstar.com; jeberhart@kcstar.com;tengle@kcstar.com; respinoza@kcstar.com;deulitt@kcstar.com; eeveld@kcstar.com;sever ly@kcstar.com;mfannin@kcstar.com; gfarmer@kcstar.com;tfinn@kcstar.com; efitzgerald@kcstar.com;mfitzgerald@kcstar.com; jfitzpatrick@kcstar.com;jflanagan@kcstar.com; rfolsom@kcstar.com;lfraney@kcstar.com; dfrese@kcstar.com;mgarbus@kcstar.com; mgarcia@kcstar.com;egarrison@kcstar.com; jgoldsmith@kcstar.com;dgoldstein@kcstar.com; sgonzales@kcstar.com;bgraham@kcstar.com; hgray@kcstar.com;lgutierrez@kcstar.com; ghack@kcstar.com;sharlow@kcstar.com; jhart@kcstar.com;dhayes@kcstar.com; jheaster@kcstar.com;rheaster@kcstar.com; mhendricks@kcstar.com;nherrera@kcstar.com; mhmial@kcstar.com;bhillmeyer@kcstar.com; ghobson@kcstar.com;choedel@kcstar.com; khoffmann@kcstar.com;shoffmann@kcstar.com; aholder@kcstar.com;thoover@kcstar.com; lhorsley@kcstar.com;phorsley@kcstar.com; chowland@kcstar.com;cibarra@kcstar.com; tibarra@kcstar.com;djamison@kcstar.com; tjanicke@kcstar.com;bjanssen@kcstar.com; kjividen@kcstar.com;djohnson@kcstar.com; bjordan@kcstar.com;ljudge@kcstar.com; kkaduk@kcstar.com;jkarash@kcstar.com; lkavanaugh@kcstar .com;lrau@kcstar.com;bkempin@kcstar.com; mekennedy@kcstar.com;bkerkhoff@kcstar.com; skeyser@kcstar.com;jking@kcstar.com; sking@kcstar.com;jklopus@kcstar.com; kknowles@kcstar.com;nkowalczyk@kcstar.com; skraske@kcstar.com paul.crosbie@examiner.ie;aidan.forde@examiner.ie; jreston@mediaforce.co.uk;recruitment@examiner.ie; ruth.walshe@examiner.ie; gladys.hourigan@examiner.ie;smullins- workforce@mediaforce.co.uk; willie.wills@examiner.ie;rose.mulcahy@examiner.ie; jreston@mediaforce.co.uk; eileen.oleary@examiner.ie; nicky.boylan@examiner.ie;anne.berot@examiner.ie; jreston@mediaforce.co.uk;jessica.lane@examiner.ie; nicky.boylan@examiner.ie;anne.berot@examiner.ie; jreston@mediaforce.co.uk;nicky.boylan@examiner.ie; anne.berot@examiner.ie;jreston@mediaforce.co.uk; siobhan.moriaty@examiner.ie; jreston@mediaforce.co.uk;feedback@unison.ie; info@unison.ie;content@unison.ie;nw@irishnews.com; d.fitzpatrick@irishnews.com; p.meehan@irishnews.com;s.higgins@irishnews.com; k.murphy@irishnews.com;business@irishnews.com; g.mccdonald@irishnews.com;j.stinson@irishnews.com; sportsdesk@irishnews.com;n.doran@irishnews.com; s.oreilly@irishnews.com;newsdesk@irishnews.com; k.bell@irishnews.com;s.simpson@irishnews.com; personnel@irishnews.com;l.mcmullen @irishnews.com;internet@irishnews.com; martin@irishnews.com;r.oneill@irishnews.com; j.lee@irishnews.com;p.osullivan@irishnews.com; editor@clarechampion.ie;jgalvin@clarechampion.ie; lduggan@clarechampion.ie;sgalvin@clarechampion.ie; editor@clarechampion.ie;ooreagan@clarechampion.ie; pkeogh@clarechampion.ie;aharvey@clarechampion.ie; slernihan@clarechampion.ie;conntel@eircom.net; bernardh@eircom.net;stephenco@eircom.net; circulation@examiner.ie;subs@examiner.ie; counter@examiner.ie;news@examiner.ie; trina.oriordan@examiner.ie;tony.leen@examiner.ie; features@examiner.ie;letters@examiner.ie; county@examiner.ie;arena@examiner.ie; feelgood@examiner.ie;farm.ed@examiner.ie; tina.neylon@examiner.ie;arts@examiner.ie; people@examiner.ie;weekend@examiner.ie; property@examiner.ie;leserbriefe@berlinonline.de; abo@berlinonline.de;bkrbk@berlinonline.de; redaktion@tip-berlin.de;redaktion@gujba.com; efaz@faz.de;k.scheller@faz.de; Anzeigen@leadermedia.de;redaktion@rhein-main.net; anzeigen@fr-aktuell.de;tast@fr-aktuell.de; h.klein@fr-aktuell.de;k.krenzer@fr-aktuell.de; k.volz@fr-aktuell.de;b.eckert@fr-aktuell.de; ausbildung@fr-aktuell.de;w.rexer@fr-aktuell.de; besichtigung@fr-aktuell.de;einkauf@fr-aktuell.de; r.pabst@fr-aktuell.de;r.zoell@fr-aktuell.de; s.goettmann@fr-aktuell.de;k.kaffenberger@fr- aktuell.de;m.kuemmerling@fr-aktuell.de;hp.volz@fr- aktuell.de;vertrieb@fr-aktuell.de;h.griesand@fr- aktuell.de;p.hass@fr-aktuell.de;c.lagler@fr- aktuell.de;k.voelker@fr-aktuell.de;vilbel@fr- aktuell.de;friedberg@fr-aktuell.de;hanau@fr- aktuell.de;neu-isenburg@fr-aktuell.de;moerfelden- walldorf@fr-aktuell.de;homburg@fr-aktuell.de; hofheim@fr-aktuell.de;betriebsrat@fr-aktuell.de; g.krause@fr-aktuell.de;w.zingrebe@fr-aktuell.de; wh@germany-live.de; rovletters@pacpress.southam.ca; sunletters@pacpress.southam.ca;chektv@wic.ca; letters@times-colonist.com;calnews@cal.sunpub.com; callet@cal.sunpub.com;chris.nelson@cal.sunpub.com; sharleen.swales@cal.sunpub.com; licia.corbella@cal.sunpub.com; rick.vansickle@cal.sunpub.com; paul.jackson@cal.sunpub.com; jose.rodriguez@cal.sunpub.com; roy.clancy@cal.sunpub.com; rick.bell@cal.sunpub.com; bill.brooks@cal.sunpub.com; chris.gerritsen@cal.sunpub.com; glen.whelan@cal.sunpub.com; comments@fyicalgary.com; edmonton@canwestinteractive.com; globalnews.reg@globaltv.ca;marlon.marshall@leader- post.sk.ca;globalnews.sas@globaltv.ca; spnews@thesp.com;globalnews.winnipeg@globaltv.ca; newstips@chtv.ca;queries@nationalpost.com; fpqueries@nationalpost.com;bpecore@globaltv.ca; globalnews.tor@globaltv.com; rdavey@thecitizen.southam.ca; letters@thecitizen.southam.ca; rmills@thecitizen.southam.ca; jorban@thecitizen.southam.ca; sanderson@thecitizen.southam.ca; lmcauley@thecitizen.southam.ca; dbutler@thecitizen.southam.ca; dshelly@thecitizen.southam.ca; cspencer@thecitizen.southam.ca; psimpson@thecitizen.southam.ca; letters@thecitizen.southam.ca; probb@thecitizen.southam.ca;abrault@globaltv.com; pgott@globaltv.com;rfilion@globaltv.ca; tmckee@globaltv.ca;jorchard@globaltv.ca; apeplows@globaltv.ca;tchurchm@globaltv.ca; sgreer@globaltv.ca;aleclair@globaltv.ca; rlurie@globaltv.ca;cpastern@globaltv.ca; lstlaur@globaltv.ca;letters@thegazette.southam.ca; mabley@thegazette.southam.ca; haubin@thegazette.southam.ca; eaustin@thegazette.southam.ca; pauthier@thegazette.southam.ca; jbagnall@thegazette.southam.ca; world@thegazette.southam.ca; mbeaudin@thegazette.southam.ca; pbeaulie@thegazette.southam.ca; dbecker@thegazette.southam.ca; dbist@thegazette.southam.ca; iblock@thegazette.southam.ca; jblond@thegazette.southam.ca; mboone@thegazette.southam.ca; brassard@thegazette.southam.ca; bbrownst@thegazette.southam.ca; jbryan@thegazette.southam.ca; walterb@thegazette.southam.ca; business@thegazette.southam.ca; camilli@thegazette.southam.ca; acarroll@thegazette.southam.ca; rcarroll@thegazette.southam.ca; dcarter@thegazette.southam.ca; ashok@thegazette.southam.ca; pcherry@thegazette.southam.ca; lchodan@thegazette.southam.ca; mchodat@thegazette.southam.ca; acioffi@thegazette.southam.ca; citynews@thegazette.southam.ca; cityslot@thegazette.southam.ca; sclark@thegazette.southam.ca; classifi@thegazette.southam.ca; jcollin@thegazette.southam.ca; zones@thegazette.southam.ca; pcooney@thegazette.southam.ca; ccornacc@thegazette.southam.ca; cgdept@thegazette.southam.ca; pcrowe@thegazette.southam.ca; pcurran@thegazette.southam.ca; pdelean@thegazette.southam.ca; bdemchin@thegazette.southam.ca; aderfel@thegazette.southam.ca; ldesorme@thegazette.southam.ca; pdonnell@thegazette.southam.ca; ledwards@thegazette.southam.ca; lizferg@thegazette.southam.ca; sferguson@thegazette.southam.ca; cfidelma@thegazette.southam.ca; rfisher@thegazette.southam.ca; lfitterm@thegazette.southam.ca; efriede@thegazette.southam.ca; mgold@thegazette.southam.ca; bgray@thegazette.southam.ca; kgreenaw@thegazette.southam.ca; jgriffin@thegazette.southam.ca; lgyulai@thegazette.southam.ca; phadekel@thegazette.southam.ca; chlambie@thegazette.southam.ca; jheinrich@thegazette.southam.ca; phickey@thegazette.southam.ca; ahustak@thegazette.southam.ca; bhyatt@thegazette.southam.ca; doj@thegazette.southam.ca; ekalbfuss@thegazette.southam.ca; georgek@thegazette.southam.ca; bkappler@thegazette.southam.ca; bkelly@thegazette.southam.ca; mking@thegazette.southam.ca; aking@thegazette.southam.ca; mlalonde@thegazette.southam.ca; mlamey@thegazette.southam.ca; alampert@thegazette.southam.ca; laurinj@thegazette.southam.ca; flauzon@thegazette.southam.ca; jlee@thegazette.southam.ca; dlemieux@thegazette.southam.ca; letters@thegazette.southam.ca; library@thegazette.southam.ca; dmacdona@thegazette.southam.ca; dmacpher@thegazette.southam.ca; wmarsden@thegazette.southam.ca; smcgover@thegazette.southam.ca; jmckenna@thegazette.southam.ca; jmeagher@thegazette.southam.ca; jmennie@thegazette.southam.ca; emicheletti@thegazette.southam.ca; smontgomery@thegazette.southam.ca; moorel@thegazette.southam.ca; smyles@thegazette.southam.ca; dnebenza@thegazette.southam.ca


3 comments

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Nutty Conspiracy Theory

The police set up surveillance on a businessman who -- according to tips from several witnesses -- is laundering money for an international cocaine cartel.

The police videotape the businessman through the window of an adjacent building. They send in an undercover agent. And they break into the suspect's office in the middle of the night and copy all of his paper and computer files.

In short, they build a very strong case that the businessman is in fact laundering money for the drug cartel.

So they barge into his office and arrest him. While he's being handcuffed, the businessman asks what he's being arrested for, and the police tell him.

"That's a conspiracy theory" the businessman taunts. "I'm just a businessman carrying out legit biz."

"But we have several different lines of evidence proving that you have been laundering cash for the Columbian boys," replies the lead police investigator.

"What, do you think that I shot JFK, too?!" mocks the suspect. "Do you boys believe in UFOs? Do you fellas think that little green men are running a global drug network, and using Area 51 to hide the goods?"

"Well, we didn't say that", reply the police.

Later, on the stand at trial, the suspect shouts "These guys are nutty conspiracy theorists!". "I'm a respectable businessman, and these guys are making up some crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy which doesn't make any sense!"

Before ruling, the judge mutters under his breath -- "that's a nutty conspiracy theory." The judge finds the defendant not guilty.

That's obviously a ridiculous story. In real life, we all know that Columbian drug cartels and international money laundering schemes occur, and that people wearing business suits may act as front men for such operations.

In other words, we know that that type of conspiracy does -- in fact --take place.

But how do we know that? Well, the media reports on it, and the government reports on it, and so it is common knowledge.

But what if the media and government had not reported on it? We assume that we --informed, smart people -- would know it was possible anyway, and not a whacky conspiracy theory. Right?

Well, what if the cocaine conspiracy was really complex and elaborate, and involved well-known people? What if, for example, the Columbian drug cartel had bribed the former Vice President of the United States to be the front man for its money laundering operations? That would be harder to believe, right, at least if the media and government had never reported on money laundering operations run by drug cartels?

But you -- as a "can't pull the wool over my eyes" kind of person -- still think you would be open to the possibility of such a conspiracy. Right?

Okay, let's take it a step further. Let's imagine that the former Vice President had inside knowledge of an affair the current American President had had with an underage girl. And let's imagine that the former VP was blackmailing the President to keep quiet -- and even to provide some logistical cover -- for the money laundering operation.

This is right out of a Tom Clancy novel, right? But its POSSIBLE -- even if far-fetched, right??

Finally, let's say that part of the operational cover the President provides to avoid the info going public is ordering the Drug Enforcement Agency and the U.S Treasury to stay away from the VP's operations and the drug cartel behind them.

That would be far-fetched, disgusting, and one of the greatest scandals in the nation's history ... but possible. Right?

Okay, now there's a DIFFERENCE with nutty conspiracy theories about 9-11, right? Maybe.

But remember, the reason that we recognized that the initial story about the businessman could be possible -- and the reason the judge seemed so stupid --
is that in real life the press and government have repeatedly discussed that type of conspiracy.

On the other hand, they never talk about THIS.

And while it may be complex and elaborate, and involved well-known people, the theory that 9-11 was carried out by elements of our own government is borne out by the evidence and is backed by some very smart people.

Are you going to be like the ignorant judge? Or are you going to think -- and look at the evidence -- for yourself?

You might assume that if the government really had a hand in 9-11, the media would have reported it by now. While that may seem like a logical assumption, it is probably an incorrect one.


4 comments

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Support Our Troops

We all know that Americans tend to support the president, the administration, and the troops during wartime. This has been true for hundreds of years. And it is still a popular theme today.

The rationale, of course, is that -- in wartime -- the country's safety is at stake, and our troops are in harm's way. So people should do nothing to delay the successful conclusion of the war.

Makes sense, right?

Indeed, during wartime, it can be a crime to even criticize the U.S. government, under the Alien and Sedition Acts and related laws.

Unfortunate, but maybe a necessary evil?

But what happens if the war was launched on false pretenses? For example, the Iraq war was based on two primary claims:

(1) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; and

(2) Saddam Hussein had a hand in 9-11.

These were both untrue. See, for example, this article.

Does a war based on misrepresentations change the "social contract" between the people and the government? Is it patriotic to remain silent during wartime, when the war itself is based on lies?

Moreover, what if -- hypothetically -- our government itself carried out the provocation which led to war? For example, what if the government itself carried out a terrorist incident in order to start a war? And what if -- just for the sake of argument -- some really smart people are saying that they might do it again?

Under that scenario, should we just remain quiet in order to "support our troops"?

• Wouldn't that mean that we are supporting a war which was initiated in the first place by criminal and dishonest acts of our own government?

• Wouldn't that mean that we are supporting criminals?

• Wouldn't that be anti-American?

Its like the story of the guy who bought an expensive, sturdy and very tall ladder to do work on his roof. When a neighbor told him he was leaning the ladder against the wrong side of the house, the guy yelled at the neighbor "but this ladder cost me $200!"

It makes no sense to be silent to support a war effort when that war effort is based on lies and deception and is actually contrary to the national security of the United States. That would be like leaning a ladder against the wrong wall and then demanding silence from everyone who tried to point out that obvious fact.


7 comments

Monday, March 13, 2006

Don't Whine - Grow a Spine

A note to Dems . . .

The Dems have been making whiny, nasal sounds about how the Republicans aren't playing nice, about how they can't get any media coverage, about how they have to "play to the right" because Americans have swung so far to the right.

In fact, the Democrats have become cowardly and visionless. Let's break this down so its nice and simple.

Republicans Aren't Playing Nice

Of course they're not playing nice; they are out to conquer the world by force.

The neocons and their allies carried out 9/11 in order to whip the people into a state of fear, so they would rally around the "strong leader" to protect them. They used Anthrax on key Democratic leaders who might have opposed the Patriot Act. They pretended Saddam helped his arch enemy Bin Laden on 9/11, and they faked WMD intelligence in order to invade Iraq. They torture innocent Iraqi farmers, spy on Americans, out CIA operatives, and generally do anything and everything in order to get their way.

Of course they don't play nice, you spineless jellyfish!! The problem isn't that they aren't playing nice. The problem is that you are playing Neville Chamberlain: trying to appease the monster in hopes it will go away.

It won't!!! Get out of your little Washington bubble and wake up!!!!

The Media Won't Cover the Dems

We know, the mainstream media won't cover anything at all of substance these days.

We bloggers have been saying for years that we have to "Be the Media". If you are a Congressman, Senator or other Democratic power-player, then get the message out through the blogs and the alternative media. Get it out at town square meetings. Get it out in mailings to your constituents. You (or your media consultants) have the know-how and the resources. If you don't know how to do it, ask us bloggers: we'll get the word out for you.

Stop whining and start speaking and writing.

The Public Has Swung Right

That is a myth. The polls show that a clear majority of Americans agree with poll questions reflecting many traditional Democratic values.

The problem is that the 9/11 trauma has shifted many Americans into a small, fear-based way of thinking. WHAT YOU ARE TOO STUBBORN TO GET IS THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB, and that until you address that, people will remain in their little sub-human monkey panic mode. You can use all of the logic in the world, people won't be able to hear it and use their logic until you address the core emotion: panic over 9/11 and terrorists. Don't you people understand basic human psychology? If you think people can think logically when they're terrified, you don't understand basic human nature.

By failing to address 9/11 head-on, you are ceding the country to the power-crazed neocons (who are as far from true conservatives as the neoliberals in the DLC are from real liberals). And by failing to address other disturbing trends in our recent history, such as vote fraud, you will ensure that the Democrats are not put back in power while there is still a country to run.

TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR BACKSIDE!!! It is YOUR job to save our country from a bunch of power-crazed folks who think the Constitution is a "G ... D ... piece of paper"

You've Been Dreaming

Wake up. You are now a grown person. You are not a little kid being pushed around by the schoolyard bully. Look down at your feet: they are a lot further from the ground then they were when you were pushed around on the playground. You are now a grown person. Start acting like one. You have the resources to do this.

I know, I know. You want to play it safe, because your advisors tell you that ...

Sorry, they're wrong. We know you enjoy your comfortable lifestyle, your social get-togethers, your little "perks" that you've worked so hard for. We understand, and living in America is comfortable when you've got a little money. But hit "pause" for two seconds so that you can take stock. The "American Lifestyle" will be gone if we continue on the autopilot we've been on. The couch may be comfy, but the water is rising quickly.

You hope that things will get better when ...

Sorry, they won't. Has Iraq gotten better? Has spying on Americans ceased? Have the threats of war against Iran and Syria stopped? Have the republicans been following Roberts Rules of Order recently? Have the voting problems been corrected?

What will it take for you to realize you're dreaming?

What will it take for you to realize you've overslept?

What will it take for you to care enough to protect the country you took an oath to defend?

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're not in junior high school any more.

And remember, some of the Democratic party's favorite sons are guilty for the mess we find ourselves in. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, in his book "The Grand Chessboard", more or less advocated world dictatorship and the use of false flag operations and deception to justify invasion in Eurasia. See this summary. If you don't face that some of the worst traits you see in republicans exist in the Democratic leadership, you'll never wake up.

Dig Down Deep

Don't believe in an orthodox religion because you're turned off by the hypocrisy, the horrible things which have been done in the name of religion, etc.? Well, dig down and find SOMETHING that you DO believe in besides just your comfortable car, and your comfortable lifestyle, and your comfortable office.

What is important to you? What do you value? Where do you get your meaning?

Your Democratic forefathers and foremothers sacrificed to protect the environment, promote civil rights, protect the downtrodden. Aren't you willing to sacrifice for SOMETHING? Do Democratic values just mean the right to be left alone to enjoy your creature comforts? Has the Democratic party become that small??

You can't shield your family with money alone. You can't have your privacy or your basic rights unless you fight for them.

You are lying on a big raft on a river. Your immediate family members are lying next to you. They are all asleep, counting on you to protect them. The raft is going into the churning river waters right before a giant waterfall, and you are happily snoozing in the sun.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Don't be concerned: I slam Democrats and Republicans equally. For example, a future article will blast Republicans for failing to live up to their values.


1 comments

Friday, March 10, 2006

Former Gang Members Are Talking . . . We Should Listen

Pop Quiz.

Who would be able to predict the behavior of a gang better:

(1) A former high-level gang member who has recently left

or (2) A social worker?

Let's say the former gang member says that the gang has changed its philosophy and "business model", and -- while formerly non-violent -- is now going to engage in many murders in order to expand its turf.

I would argue the former gang member would know where the gang is headed better than the social worker.

Okay, who would know better where the Republican leadership is heading -- Democrats and professional pundits or such current and former high-level republicans as:

• Respected retired supreme court justice and Republican Sandra Day O'Connor, who warned of dictatorship in a recent speech

• Former high-level Republican politician, Paul Craig Roberts, called one of the most influential modern conservatives, who says that the current administration is heading towards fascism

• Current U.S. Republican congressman Ron Paul, who says that the U.S. is close to dictatorship

Former gang members are talking . . . we should listen.

Of course, many conservatives are intelligent people of good faith and moral character. But the conservative movement has been taken over by NEOconservatives, who are as different from true conservatives as they are from liberals. Indeed, many neoconservatives are former MARXISTS (Google it; its true).

A more accurate analogy might be a social club which then turns into a criminal gang, and a former high-level member of the social club is warning about the conversion to a gang. I used the gang analogy only because it is a powerful image with which people can relate viscerally.

By the way, I will blast the Democrats in a future essay -- they are no better than the Republicans.


4 comments

Thursday, March 09, 2006

9/11 and The Left

Several prominent liberal writers are arguing that 9/11 is a distraction from the fight for liberal causes. Are they right?

Riddle Me This

Before I address that question, let me ask another one:

Q: What do Daniel Ellsberg, Lewis Lapham, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Marc Crispin Miller, Howard Zinn, Ray McGovern, Robert McChesney, Gore Vidal, Chris Floyd, Robert Fisk, Medea Benjamin, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Paul Hawken, David Cobb, Randy Hayes, Ernest Callenbach, Dennis Bernstein, Paul H. Ray, Michael Franti, Janeane Garafalo and Ed Asner all have in common?

A: All of these leading liberal voices question the Bush administration's account of what happened on 9/11.

(See this article and video, this short video, this short video, this article, this short posting, this petition, this article, this essay, this book review , this review, and this one).

Moreover, Noam Chomsky is calling for the declassification of 9/11-related documents. Former ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson is dissatisfied with the government's explanation for 9/11. And the former president of the National Lawyers Guild and many other prominent progressive legal scholars question 9/11.

So before you go "representing" the liberal position on 9/11, take a look at what these prominent progressives have said.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Okay, now let's get down to substance.

The administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.

Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since 9/11, the American people have been terrified -- and thus irrational -- based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues -- including withdrawal from Iraq -- until "we get the bad guys".

Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any costs. Thus, the Saddam-911 deception was necessarily a precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.

I Spy

Indeed, the Bush administration is now using 9/11 as an excuse for domestic spying without warrant, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for every other unconstitutional, undemocratic, unAmerican destruction of civil liberties which it takes.

Iran

How about war with Iran? That's an important issue for liberals, isn't it? Well, Americans are still terrified about Arabs with weapons. Moreover, since Americans are still largely ignorant about the use of "false flag operations" by governments to justify wars, Americans will fall for a faked provocation. What am I talking about? Well, the National Security Adviser for President Carter recently told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation. Similarly, a current Congressman has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran". And a progressive member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

In other words, if 9/11 was, in fact, a false flag operation, and that fact is not exposed by the left, then that will enable the neoconservatives to use another faked terror incident in order to justify a war against Iran.

Thus, 9/11 is central for those interested in peace.

The Reality Based Community?

Liberals proudly proclaim the superiority of rationality over propaganda, blind passion and illogic. Right?

If you spend even 5 minutes looking at how completely the government investigations into 9/11 have failed to meet even basic tests of rationality, you will realize that liberals must demand a new, impartial investigation.

Other Liberal Causes

What about other traditional liberal causes? What about global warming? Women's rights? Gay rights? Helping the poor? Other liberal causes? Well, as a blogger from the University of Winnipeg in Canada says:

"[failing to fully address what really happened on 9/11] will only serve to undermine all they would otherwise hope to accomplish -- in terms of the environment and social equity -- and for one fundamental reason: ... it is the war on terror that is the primary "displacement activity" burying progressive causes, not 911 skepticism.

The war on terror is such a potent metanarrative that it is driving a host of policy decisions -- even in an otherwise progressive nation as Canada -- that are sucking resources away from human needs, ecological conservation, climate change prevention and adaptation, poverty alleviation and peacemaking. Until this metanarrative is dismantled and revealed for the lethal and cynical fraud it is and always has been, causes supported by progressives will never be properly addressed.

9/11 may not have changed everything, but until this controversy can be openly addressed in the media and through a more objective investigation, we may be unable to change anything."

Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries. Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans were a generous and good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of other countries by reminding Germans that war is bad and peace is good? Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights by writing about the desirability of civil liberties?

Of course not! The German people were whipped up into a state of hysteria and fear, because they thought they were under attack by communists, and Poles, and "bad guys" in general. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader. Without first exposing that the Reichstag fire and Operation Himmler - the two things which were the source and root cause of the German people's fears, and which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power -- the sweeping away of liberal causes by the wave of fear could not be stopped.

Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist and Polish terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.

The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time. The German people could have been spared from the horrors inflicted on their nation and the world by the Nazis. And sanity and liberal values could have been saved in 1940's-era Germany.

As stated by a well-known liberal, George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


3 comments

Bush's Bad Science

If you've been paying attention, you know that the Bush administration has been playing fast and loose with science.

But I'm not sure people fully grasp the implications.

Examples of bad science include:

• In 2002, the US Geological Survey submitted the results of a 12- year study, concluding that oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would adversely affect the habitat of the wildlife of the region (duh). Interior Secretary Gail Norton ordered a reassessment and -- coincidentally -- got the desired result in one week: arctic wildlife just love oil rigs. See http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=6431

• Also in 2002, the Pentagon terminated the contract of the "Jason" panel – an advisory group composed of forty to fifty elite scientists. John Marburger, Bush's science advisor, described the group as "working scientists – top-notch people who are experts in their fields". One member suggested that the termination Jason followed from an attempt by the Bush administration "to place political appointees to [the] scientific panel." (NY TIMES, 3/23/02).

• Critics of Bush's "National Missile Defense System" faced retaliation by the Bush administration. By way of example, the dissent of Dr. Theodore Postal of MIT cost him federal research grants, along with threats of research cutbacks to MIT. In addition, Dr. Nira Schwartz, a scientist and computer expert, was fired by the defense contractor, TRW, immediately after determining that the design of the defense missiles (i.e., "kill vehicles") was fatally flawed. In early march, the General Accounting Office confirmed her findings. See http://www.salon.com/news/col/huff/2002/03/14/trw/index_np.html.

So can we agree that the Bush administration -- directly and through its allies -- has put enormous pressure on scientists and engineers to give results which favor industry?

Okay, now how about cooked intelligence? Can we agree that the Bush administration faked the whole Iraq WMD thing, and is now faking intelligence about Iranian weapons capabilities?

Okay, then ... why is it so hard to believe that the Bush administration pressured NIST into reaching certain conclusions about the collapse of the World Trade Centers? NIST, the agency charged with figuring out why the WTC buildings collapsed on 9/11, refused to model the collapses themselves (huh?), and is delaying on reaching a conclusion about why World Trade Center building 7 -- which was not hit by a plane -- collapsed on 9/11. See http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html, http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html and http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Postscript: This is NOT a liberal versus conservative issue. There are good conservative scientists and good liberal scientists.

This is an issue of science versus politics. Can't we agree that politics wins under the current administration?



3 comments

9/11 and the Left

Several prominent liberal writers are arguing that 9/11 is a distraction from the fight for liberal causes. Are they right?

Riddle Me This

Before I address that question, let me ask another one:

Q: What do Daniel Ellsberg, William Blum, Daniel Berrigan, David Swanson, Elizabeth Kucinich, Lewis Lapham, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Amy Goodman, Thom Hartmann, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Marc Crispin Miller, Howard Zinn, Ray McGovern, Robert McChesney, Gore Vidal, Chris Floyd, Robert Fisk, Medea Benjamin, Doris "Granny D" Haddock, Paul Hawken, David Cobb, Randy Hayes, Ernest Callenbach, Dennis Bernstein, Paul H. Ray, Michael Franti, Janeane Garafalo and Ed Asner all have in common?

A: All of these leading liberal voices question the Bush administration's account of what happened on 9/11.

(See this article and video, this short video, this short video, this article, this short posting, this petition, this one, this article, this one, this essay, this book review, this review, and this one).

Moreover, Noam Chomsky is calling for the declassification of 9/11-related documents. Former ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson is dissatisfied with the government's explanation for 9/11. And the former president of the National Lawyers Guild and many other prominent progressive legal scholars question 9/11.

So before you go "representing" the liberal position on 9/11, take a look at what these prominent progressives have said.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

Okay, now let's get down to substance.

The administration's false claims linking Iraq and 9/11 helped convince a large portion of the American public to invade Iraq. While the focus now may be on false WMD claims, it is important to remember that, at the time, the Iraq-911 link was at least as important in many people's minds as a reason to invade Iraq.

Moreover, the trauma of September 11, 2001 is what galvanized many Americans to rally around the Bush administration in general, to close ranks in time of peril, and to give Bush his "mandate" (putting questions of election fraud to the side). Ever since 9/11, the American people have been terrified -- and thus irrational -- based upon the trauma of the vicious attacks. Since most Americans believe that the bad guys are "out there" and are about to get us unless we have a strong leader to fight them, they will not and CANNOT make any logical decisions about any other foreign or domestic issues -- including withdrawal from Iraq -- until "we get the bad guys".

Indeed, the WMD hoax probably would not have worked if it wasn't for the anti-Arab hysteria after September 11th. And the government policy of torture would not have been tolerated if we weren't misled into thinking that Saddam and Al-Qaeda had formed an unholy, all-powerful alliance on 9/11, and had to be stopped at any costs. Thus, the Saddam-911 deception was necessarily a precursor to the administration's WMD lies and torture policies.

I Spy

Indeed, the Bush administration is now using 9/11 as an excuse for domestic spying without warrant, and will use 9/11 as an excuse for every other unconstitutional, undemocratic, unAmerican destruction of civil liberties which it takes.

Iran

How about war with Iran? That's an important issue for liberals, isn't it? Well, Americans are still terrified about Arabs with weapons. Moreover, since Americans are still largely ignorant about the use of "false flag operations" by governments to justify wars, Americans will fall for a faked provocation. What am I talking about? Well, the National Security Adviser for President Carter recently told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation. Similarly, a current Congressman has said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran". And a progressive member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

In other words, if 9/11 was, in fact, a false flag operation, and that fact is not exposed by the left, then that will enable the neoconservatives to use another faked terror incident in order to justify a war against Iran.

Thus, 9/11 is central for those interested in peace.

The Reality Based Community?

Liberals proudly proclaim the superiority of rationality over propaganda, blind passion and illogic. Right?

If you spend even 5 minutes looking at how completely the government investigations into 9/11 have failed to meet even basic tests of rationality, you will realize that liberals must demand a new, impartial investigation.

Other Liberal Causes

What about other traditional liberal causes? What about global warming? Women's rights? Gay rights? Helping the poor? Other liberal causes? Well, as a blogger from the University of Winnipeg in Canada says:

"[failing to fully address what really happened on 9/11] will only serve to undermine all they would otherwise hope to accomplish -- in terms of the environment and social equity -- and for one fundamental reason: ... it is the war on terror that is the primary "displacement activity" burying progressive causes, not 911 skepticism.

The war on terror is such a potent metanarrative that it is driving a host of policy decisions -- even in an otherwise progressive nation as Canada -- that are sucking resources away from human needs, ecological conservation, climate change prevention and adaptation, poverty alleviation and peacemaking. Until this metanarrative is dismantled and revealed for the lethal and cynical fraud it is and always has been, causes supported by progressives will never be properly addressed.

9/11 may not have changed everything, but until this controversy can be openly addressed in the media and through a more objective investigation, we may be unable to change anything."

Imagine, if you would, that you were a citizen in Germany right after the Reichstag fire had occurred. As you might know, the Reichstag fire was the burning down of the German parliament building by Hitler's men, which was then blamed on the communists in order to justify wars against neighboring countries. Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans were a generous and good people who do not torture others? Do you think that you could have prevented the spread of disinformation about the hostile intentions and military capabilities of other countries by reminding Germans that war is bad and peace is good? Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights by writing about the desirability of civil liberties?

Of course not! The German people were whipped up into a state of hysteria and fear, because they thought they were under attack by communists, and Poles, and "bad guys" in general. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader. Without first exposing that the Reichstag fire and Operation Himmler - the two things which were the source and root cause of the German people's fears, and which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power -- the sweeping away of liberal causes by the wave of fear could not be stopped.

Similarly, Americans are crazed by the fear of Arab terrorists just like Germans were terrified of communist and Polish terrorists. Both peoples have handed over all of their power to their leaders in order to buy an imaginary security.

The Nazis might have been brought to justice well before the Nuremberg trials if the Reichstag hoax had been exposed at the time. The German people could have been spared from the horrors inflicted on their nation and the world by the Nazis. And sanity and liberal values could have been saved in 1940's-era Germany.

As stated by a well-known liberal, George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


2 comments