Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Cease and Desist

Many 9/11 truth webmasters have been receiving "cease and desist" letters from newspapers such as the New York Times, the Times of London, and other mainstream media outlets. The letters state that the 9/11 website is infringing on the company's copyright by duplicating or caching articles without permission.

This post will provide a very brief outline of how you might be able to stay out of hot water if you receive such a letter. When I have time, I'll flesh this blog out, so check back again in about a week.

Should you Ignore the Letter?

Copyright infringement is a pretty serious matter. There are stiff penalties. And copyright infringement is a "strict liability" offense, so that even if you innocently and unknowingly infringe someone's copyright, you can still be found guilty.

So its not smart to stick your head in the sand and hope they go away.

So What CanYou Do?

First, you could state that your use of the material is "fair use". In a copyright infringement case, the judge will analyze your claim to fair use of the copyrighted material using the following 4 factors:

(1) The purposes and character of the use, including whether the use is primarily commercial in nature;

(2) The nature of the copyrighted work being borrowed from;

(3) The amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) The effect on the potential market or value of the copyrighted work.

You can argue that, under (1), you are solely using the article for educational and political purposes. (Even if you are making money from your website, you can still try to argue that you are using the article for non-commercial purposes, in that you are solely raising money so that you can continue your educational and political activities).

If you are only using part of the article, then you can argue that under (3), you have only duplicated the part of the article which contains important information, and which does not constitute the most commerically important portion of the copyrighted work.

And you can argue that, under (4), you are not diminishing the potential market or value of the copyrighted work. If you also link to the article, you should mention that, and state that the company that wrote you the letter can still make money when people go to the link to look at the original (that is, they either buy access to the article or patronize the advertisers of tha company's website).


If you are using videos or photos of events which occurred on or around 9/11, you can argue that your use of such images is also protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, in addition to claiming fair use of the copyrighted material, you can argue that your reproduction is protected under the "Zapruder line of cases", since:

(1) The 9/11 images are of historical significance;

(2) They show facts which cannot be conveyed effectively in any other manner, and

(3) Therefore the Constitution trumps copyright law.

See this Google search for more information. This is an unsettled area of law, but it is worth making the argument, as I have seen it scare off companies which are threatening to sue.

You should be nice to the company and -- while vigorously asserting your First Amendment rights and fair use defense -- be respectful and try to negotiate a resolution.

You can also try to get free or low-cost legal help from a group such as Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF emails out requests for free legal help to its list of copyright attorneys).



Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Shout Out

Andrew Lowe-Watson has the following idea for a 9/11 shout out:
"I have been thinking of an idea for a mass worldwide protest on September 11th. This year is make or break time for the movement.

This is my idea: A minute's shout. Like the two-minute silence in reverse.

The plan - called SHOUT FOR TRUTH - is to post all over the internet the time and day of this event. At 09:11 a.m. [local time] on "9/11/06" every truther in the world stops what they are doing and shouts "Nine-eleven was an inside job!" for a minute. It could have quite a dramatic effect on those watching."

I like this idea. There will be some great events occurring on 9/11. But if you can't make it to one of those, you can spread the truth loud and clear by participating in Andrew's shout for truth.

This is especially interesting because of the Hundredth Monkey and social proof principles of sociology.


Podcast The Truth

One of the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth had a great idea. Its worth reading the whole thing to get why his idea is such a good one:
"I was in a state of disbelief from the get-go about the 9-11 attacks, but finally seeing the video of WTC7 coming down convinced me, as it did so many others, that a false flag operation had happened.

We are a culture finely tuned to video. My question, whenever I get into 9-11 discussions with random bystanders, is "But ... have you seen the video of WTC7 coming down?"

Their response is usually "What building 7?"

So I picked a used Palm Tungsten T running PalmOS 5.0 on Craigslist for $40, and I can now whip out and show them. I chose a Palm T over an iPod because it is so much cheaper, takes a standard SD memory card, and has a 320x320 color screen. Also it is the smallest Palm PDA. Drawback is it doesn't have much memory for multimedia. Movies and stills run fine, but a slideshow with movies AND underlying audio runs into trouble.

I am working on a slideshow in 323x320 format that is a tutorial about controlled demolition (shows various characteristics of CD, using zoomed-in WTC buildings as examples) Then only when these principles are firmly established in the viewers mind, will the slideshow zoom out and identify the buildings as WTC edifices, show where they were located and when they came down, etc. Identifying yourself early on as a 911 revisionist primes some people for a defensive posture."

I'm not enough of a portable device geek to know what the best hardware or software is. What I do know is:

• Building 7 is the strongest lever in prying open the minds of people who do not want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job

• The new Zogby poll shows that 70% of people who know about building 7 think it should have been investigated by the 9/11 Commission

• The net is under attack, and we might lose that resource in the not-too-distant future

• Websites like can make this type of video available, so you can download it and show it to others. Ideally, the video should show the WTC7 collapse and the collapses of verified controlled demolitions (clips of the WTC7 collapse itself can be downloaded from here or here)

So everyone should get a used or new portable player (you can afford $40), download the WTC7 footage, and show people the video where you work, eat, commute, shop and play.

Ready, break!

DZ, who runs and, says: "Another cheap solution is a $99 portable dvd player.. sure it is more bulky, but it also can play DVD's on a 7-9" screen with sound."


Save the Net

As I've previously said, the Internet has been the main reason that the criminals who carried out 9/11, got us into the war in Iraq, and have stripped away our basic freedoms have not been even more successful in carrying out their agenda.

As Kevin Barrett has said "We've already taken the net. Now we've got to go out and take the rest of the world with the truth."

Well, we're about to lose the Net unless we act right now.

Why? Because congress is allowing the big telecoms to charge for "fast" webpage loading. Those websites which can't pay the fast-loading fee -- which would include 99% of the websites and blogs, including THIS ONE, which provide real truth and provide an alternative to the mainstream media -- would lose readers, because
no one wants to wait around for a slow-loading webpage. More importantly, the growth of readership of such websites would stop dead in its tracks, because people just starting to question the "official" version of things will simply go to faster-loading pages. And once the telecoms and government start down this road, do you think they'll have any problem "accidentally" preventing hard-hitting truth sites from loading at all?

Congress is THIS WEEK considering "net neutrality" legislation. What's net neutrality? Its an awkward phrase which just means that the telecoms can't let some websites (whose owners are rich enough to pay new quick-load fees) pop up faster than others. Net neutrality is the antidote to the current plan to tame the net and make it into a corporate message machine.

As stated today in an email action alert sent out by the group Free Press:

"Senate and House committees will consider Net Neutrality legislation this week—just as we have achieved great momentum in our fight to preserve Internet freedom.

Our coalition passed 700,000 petition signatures to Congress, we've picked up new bipartisan support in the House, and leading editorial pages are supporting Net Neutrality. Plus, a group of popular artists and musicians joined our Coalition.

Please help keep the momentum going by calling on your three members of Congress to support Net Neutrality, even if you've called before.

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121"

This might seem like an abstract issue, but it is central to whatever particular issue you are concerned about: 9/11, torture, spying, vote fraud, the environment, or whatever.

Don't let them take away one of the main tools in our arsenal for truth and justice. This is a meta-issue, which will directly affect your ability to spread the truth about the issue which is important to you. Please call Congress and tell all of your allies to call today to support net neutrality.

While you've got them on the phone, also demand that Congress release the evidence called for in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Petition


Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Osama Bin Distractin

The day after the first national poll showed that 70 million Americans support a new 9/11 investigation, and 55% of Americans disapprove of the way in which the media has covered questions surrounding 9/11, what does the mainstream media do?

They covered the poll, and apologized for their terrible coverage of the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job or allowed to happen on purpose! Finally, it only took them 4 and a half years, but they've finally started reporting the truth!

Uh ... no. Instead, all of the major networks are ignoring the poll and instead running a story about how Osama directed 9/11. Specifically, the top story at all of the MSM websites is something like "Osama bin Laden says Zacarias Moussaoui had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists attacks", that Osama directed the 19 hijackers on exactly what to do, and crazy old Moussaoui wasn't one of them.

How convenient of Osama to distract attention away from the poll. What a helpful chap. It doesn't matter that the Osama videos about 9/11 are fake, according to scientists and top Bin Laden experts, or that he is dead, according to Israeli intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, and other sources.

And whether or not he's dead, it doesn't matter that the CIA met with Bin Laden 2 months before 9/11. And Walter Cronkite, America's most trusted newsman, must have really lost it when he said of a previous Bin Laden tape:

"I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing...."

Don't look at the man behind the curtain, folks.

Osama Bin Distractin, once again.

Update: They did it again. Hours after a new poll showed the majority of Americans want Congress to investigate Bush and Cheney in connection with 9/11, a "new" Bin Laden video appears.


Monday, May 22, 2006

Social Proof

The reason that the national Zogby Poll on 9/11 is so important can be boiled down to 2 words: Social Proof.

Social proof is the principle from sociology that many people will believe something if most other people believe it (see also this article). In other words, its the herd instinct.

The reason that the mainstream media has totally boycotted the real evidence contradicting the official 9/11 story, even though it is all over the Internet, is that the media owners know that if it doesn't appear on Fox, or CNN, or the other mainstream tv networks, many Americans will assume the social proof is that "everyone" accepts the official story. So they won't question it themselves.

But some 70 million Americans are now calling for a new, real 9/11 investigation. To put that in perspective, approximately 122 million Americans voted in the 2004 election. So 70 million is a fairly impressive number.

Now, for the first time, the poll provides social proof that the 9/11 Commission covered up the true facts of 9/11, and that we need a new, impartial investigation. In other words, millions of Americans who would otherwise not even consider the evidence which contradicts the official version of 9/11 may now accept calls for a new investigation. If we use this correctly, we can go from facing an impossible task of overcoming resistance to 9/11 truth to having a majority of Americans demand a real investigation.

Therefore, virtually every press release or statement about 9/11 should include a reference to the poll to show people that many Americans are 9/11 truthers who scoff at the 9/11 Commission as a fraud and that demand a real 9/11 investigation.

This is leverage ... use it.


Stop the Presses!

I urge everyone to hold off on speculating about what hit the Pentagon until the next round of videos is released. What videos?

Well, the folks who's freedom of information act (FOIA) request apparently was the real cause of the release of the new Pentagon videos, is now saying that last week's videos were solely released in response to its first FOIA request, and that another 80 or so videos, from many different angles and vantage points, will be released very soon in response to its second FOIA request.

Who knows what the second batch of tapes will show. If Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, they will show that. If it didn't, they've had 4 1/2 years to fake it.

So I would strongly urge everyone in the 9/11 movement to hold your horses until all of the tapes are released.

I'm still undecided about what hit the Pentagon. But I think anyone who speaks out on the Judicial Watch videos now -- without waiting for the other shoe to drop -- is setting themselves, and the 9/11 movement, up for a fall.

If the second round of videos are fake, then we should try to prove that once they are out. But speaking out about the Judicial Watch videos now is like shooting all of our bullets at a shadow, before our opponent has even entered the room.

So stop the presses and hold your horses.

In the meantime, here's something to think about; but take a look at this


Friday, May 19, 2006


It all comes down to courage . . .

If you have courage, then you're willing to face that really stinky mess in the garage and clean it up.

You have faith you can clean it up, because you've cleaned up other really stinky messes, or seen other people do it. In other words, you have faith because you have experience of succeeding in the past.

Now Americans don't have much faith that we can throw out a bunch of murdering, psychotic tyrants (excuse my French). Why? Because we don't have experience succeeding against such people.

Sure, the Founding Fathers threw out the British; but that was WAY back in the day, hundreds of years before we were born. French revolution? Ancient history, and different country. WWII? Still generations back for many of us, and that was different. The WWII generation was fighting "the good war", and never knew that our own government probably let Pearl Harbor be attacked in order to justify the U.S. entry into WWII to help out the British. So we have no experience of having really stood up to tyrants.

Fat and Happy

Moreover, we Americans have led a very pampered life for the past couple of decades. Sure, there has been inequality and exploitation, and some have had it a lot worse than others. But, other than stopping extreme forms of racism (Ku Klux Klan, etc.), we haven't had to defend our borders or our liberties.

Basically, we complain if our tv goes on the fritz, or our team loses the game, or we can't afford that new, nicer whatzit, or if our boss is mean. We think those are big, Earth-shattering, history-changing events. But they are quite small in the grand scheme of things

And even those of us who think of ourselves as brave heroes usually only act like that when we know it is within the bounds of safety, within the limits of what we can handle. "Tough guys" tend to turn into meek mice whenever they are really threatened.

So we're basically lazy and timid, but we don't know or admit it. We like to pretend we are like the Founding Fathers or John Wayne (at least the cowboys had to rough it a little).

But we have no experience of successfully standing up to tyrants, so we have no faith that it can be done, and while the evidence is right before our noses that our current leaders are tyrants, we're so terrified that we have our knickers in a bunch.

What Would They Do?

Even if you haven't experienced success in standing up to tyrants, remember that the Founding Fathers did just that. They were just men, not gods. Sure, they were too persistent and stubborn to give up, but that's because they CARED about something: freedom.

They may have lived hundreds of years before our time, but that doesn't matter -- we can still learn from their experience as if it were happening now. Time is an illusion, since human nature is the same now as it was then. Just as many people of faith ask "what would Jesus do?", we can also ask "what would the founding fathers do?" If they could do it, we can do it.

Take Heart

There is a real misunderstanding of what it means to be courageous. In America, courage is often thought of as a testosterone-driven toughness. There's nothing the matter with testosterone. Masculinity is a great thing. But many American men secretly fear that they don't have sufficient testosterone to really be brave when the chips are down. As I said above, even those of us who think of ourselves as brave men usually only act like that when we know it is within the bounds of safety, within the limits of what we can handle.

We might jump in a bar room brawl to protect our buddy, but that's because we know we're only going to get knocked around a little bit -- nothing but bruises that will go away in a little while. The stakes just aren't that high.

But most American men secretly doubt whether they are macho enough to pull it off under fire. They may watch alot of action movies, and talk tough, and stand up when its not really dangerous (or when they clearly outgun the other guy), but they are secretly terrified that they don't have quite enough backbone to pull it off against the big boys, such as tyrants.

I would argue that this view fundamentally misunderstands the nature of courage, and ensures that we will never have true courage when it counts.

By way of analogy, the word "discipline" comes from "disciple". If you are a true "disciple" of an idea of a plan or a strategy or a religion, then you will stick to it and "have discipline" to reach your goal. It is not just a matter of willpower; it is also devotion to something bigger than ourselves.

Similarly, the word "courage" comes from the French "with heart". Why does it have this root meaning? Because it takes heart to act bravely. That's how my childhood Karate teacher used the word: when I was practicing with courage, power and focus, he would say "you have alot of heart today" (indeed, many old-school warriors use the phrase "fighting with heart" in that way).

If courage is acting "with heart", we've lost heart. And without heart, we cannot face the truth of 9/11, or lying to start wars, or vote fraud, or fascism, or torture, or dictatorship.

So how do we regain our heart? Well, let's start with what gets our hearts beating.

Remember that the mother bear is one of the fiercest animals of all. Just get between a mother bear and her cub and you'll see what I mean. It is her love of her cub which gives her the heart to face any enemy when her cub is threatened. It is not her level of testosterone, but rather her love for her cub which makes her so fierce.

Just as discipline is more than just willpower, courage stems from something bigger than just cajones. In fact, the strongest courage comes from the love of something we care about, since our heart will sustain us even when the chips are really down and we are really up against a tyrant. As the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said: "Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage. "

In addition, we're no longer living in the old west. Individualism is very important in numerous ways, but we can only win against the tyrants as a team, as a community, as a nation. And only by opening our hearts to what matters will we be able to work together, to fight for all of our kids, and all of our freedom. Only then will we be able to put the tyrants back in the box.

Do we care about our kids, our significant others, our parents, our friends? Do we care about the freedom to choose what we want, instead of having our "great leader" choose for us?

If not, what DO we care about? Because if that is where your heart is, that is what will give you courage.

Even if you are driven by greed, then -- unless you directly make your living from the defense or oil industries (the two sectors profiting wildy under the current administration) -- you have motive to restore democracy to our country.

I care too much about my kids and my freedom to be afraid. I care enough about them that it gets my heart beating, connects me to something bigger than myself, and that gives me courage, even when the chips are down.

Courage is an innate human quality. It is within each of us, waiting to reveal itself when we open our hearts. When we act with heart, by definition, we are courageous.

Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither.
– Thomas Jefferson

Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
- Hellen Keller

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.
- Goethe

Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.
- Ambrose Redmoon

Courage is an everyday thing. When we look reality squarely in the eye and refuse to back away from our awareness, we are living courage.
- Anonymous

To have courage for whatever comes in life - everything lies in that.
- Mother Teresa

It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
- Robert F . Kennedy

It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult.
- Seneca, Native American

Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the others.
- Aristotle

Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.
- John Wayne

Courage is doing what your afraid to do. There can be no courage unless you're scared.
- Eddie Rickenbacker

Courage is fear holding on a minute longer.
- George Patton

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Be bold and courageous. When you look back on your life, you'll regret the things you didn't do more than the ones you did.
- H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face.
— Eleanor Roosevelt

Within each of us is a hidden store of energy. Energy we can release to compete in the marathon of life Within each of us is a hidden store of courage. Courage to give us the strength to face any challenge Within each of us is a hidden store of determination. Determination to keep us in the race when all seems lost.
- Roger Dawson

We must never despair; our situation has been compromising before; and it changed for the better; so I trust it will again. If difficulties arise; we must put forth new exertion and proportion our efforts to the exigencies of the times.
- George Washington

We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.
-Sonia Johnson

Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead


New Videos: Bombs in the Buildings

This very short clip shows firefighters talking about bombs and secondary devices in the World Trade Center

This new eyewitness testimony is very interesting for its observations about the detonation sounds involved with the collapse of both Twin Towers, low pressure, and the collapse of building 7.

Check out this webpage for alot more eyewitness testimony of bombs in the World Trade Center on 9/11


Tuesday, May 16, 2006

I Don't Know, But ...

Now that the new videos of the impact with the Pentagon are getting airplay in all of the mainstream media, what should we do?

Well,, one of the groups which fought for release of the Pentagon tapes, says "we still have a second FOIA [which stands for "freedom of information act"] request active for the other 84 flight 77 recordings. We WILL get those also. They should include the Citgo [gas station] tape and the [Sheraton] hotel tape." So there will probably be more videos coming.

Dylan Avery argues that the new tapes prove that flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. Alex Jones argues that the new videos are setting the "no planers" up in order to discredit the entire 9/11 movement.

So who's right?

I don't know. I've always been agnostic about what hit the Pentagon, and still am.

But what I do know is how we should leverage this media focus on 9/11. This is a golden opportunity to focus on what we do know.

Whenever anyone asks me "Don't these videos prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?" I'm going to respond like this:

"I don't know. But I do know that the world's mightiest military was stood down on 9/11, fighter jets flew at only a small fraction of their top speed, and planes were allowed to fly all over the country for an hour or so, according to people like the former head of the Star Wars space defense system, a retired air force colonel who flew more than 100 combat missions.

And I know that there were 5 war games that "happened" to be occurring on the morning of 9/11, including one simulating a plane crashing into a building, and that Dick Cheney was apparently in charge of the war games and all counter-terrorism activities on 9/11, and that he appears to have allowed the Pentagon to be hit, according to testimony by Secretary of Transportation Norm Minetta to the 9/11 Commission.

And I know that physicists, mechanical engineers, and other scientists have said that the world trade centers were intentionally destroyed with controlled demolition. Indeed, they point out that a third building -- world trade center 7 -- was destroyed on 9/11 even though it was never hit by a plane, had only small fires, and collapsed at the same speed as if it had no supports or walls whatsoever.

And I know that the 9/11 Commission was a political whitewash which didn't address the most important issues regarding what happened on 9/11, according to folks like the former head of the FBI.

And I know that it is well-documented that many governments around the world, including the U.S., have faked terrorist attacks against their own people and blamed it on enemies in order to justify wars against those enemies, according to very credible historians.

Wanna talk about these things?


Monday, May 15, 2006

Fox in the Henhouse

People who watch Fox news are wholly out of touch with what's going in this country, and with what other Americans think.

Here's why. The owner of Fox's parent company, Rupert Murdoch, is a neocon who supports dictators not only in the U.S., but in China and elsewhere.

So next time you're talking to someone about 9/11, torture, spying, election fraud or anything else of substance, ask them if they watch Fox news. If the answer is yes, ask them if they know that the owner of Fox supports Chinese dictators.

Maybe that'll get their attention.


Sunday, May 14, 2006

Truth and Reconciliation

What's the end goal of the fight for 9/11 truth and justice? Is it to see the perpetrators impeached and tried for their crimes, and then sentenced to life in jail? Or executed?

I think that's aiming too low. That's not going far enough.

Why? Because the gentlemen who carried out 9/11 will likely be replaced by some other corrupt, ruthless folks. Meet the new boss ... same as the old boss.

If all we do is punish the perpetrators, the spin will be it was just a "handful of bad apples". This is the same angle that was used on the grunts at Abu Ghraib, even though we now know that the orders for torture in Iraq came from the very top.

Sure, the 9/11 perpetrators apparently were at the very top. But a 9/11 criminal prosecution is more likely to sacrifice a couple of small fish than to point to the true ringleaders.

Further, many American military, intelligence and political folks are afraid to expose what they know about 9/11 for fear that it will plunge the country into chaos. As someone wrote anonymously in response to a previous essay:

"I think this is the key question. What would happen if this great crime were exposed and justice meted out to the many involved? How would the system be rebuilt and who would keep the broken pieces together during the healing process? Without some thought along these lines, many people will see exposing 9/11 as stepping into the abyss."

So unless we can provide a way to obtain truth and justice and save our country, many people with inside knowledge or who are in positions of power will hinder rather than help us.

Finally, even if the true leaders of 9/11 are prosecuted, other countries will just blame it on the "crazy Americans". Who cares about other countries? Well, countries all over the world have carried out operations like 9/11. And China will probably replace America as the world's leading superpower in twenty years or so. So even if the American leaders of the 9/11 attacks are brought to justice, it is likely that the true lesson of 9/11 will not be learned by others.

A Different Strategy

Some of the main 9/11 truth movers and shakers have suggested an alternative strategy: a 9/11 Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

As you may recall, South Africa set up a truth and reconciliation commission. The Commission granted amnesty to the people who committed brutal acts of murder and torture under the apartheid regime. I wasn't in South Africa at the time, but my impression is that the Commission helped South Africa heal its incredibly deep wounds quickly. Not only did the victims have a chance to tell their stories, but the people who carried out these horrible acts had a chance to confess in public.

Would the same work with 9/11? Maybe so.

What if the perpetrators of 9/11 and their assistants were granted amnesty from prosecution on the condition that they fully explain how and why 9/11 happened? And anyone caught consciously lying would automatically go to jail? The following might occur:

• Lower-level 9/11 conspirators would probably be more likely to come forward and tell what they know

• When they come forward, they are more likely to point their finger at the real masterminds of 9/11

• Seeing a way to support the truth without destroying the country, others who have knowledge of the true 9/11 facts -- even if they are not direct participants in 9/11 -- will be more likely to work publicly for truth and justice, instead of hindering us

• People in other countries will hear the true facts about 9/11, so that false flag terrorism will be less likely to be used in their countries

Less is More

Does this sound like I'm being soft on the criminals? Well, initially a 9/11 Truth and Reconciliation Commission would not grant amnesty to anyone who failed to fully confess. So let's say higher-level people did not admit their role in 9/11: they would be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law.

Moreover, sometimes less is more. Remember those Chinese finger cuffs you played with as a kid? If you tried to pull your finger out quickly, you got trapped ... but if you patiently pushed the ends towards the middle, you could free your finger.

Well, 9/11 may be like Chinese finger cuffs. If we insist on executing all of the perpetrators, the resistance might be so great that we stay "trapped" in the current "cuff" of immobilization and resistance to 9/11 truth.

But if we are a little more patient and a bit more intelligent in our approach, we might be able to "free" the forces of truth and justice, and free ourselves from the nightmare in which we are currently trapped.

We need to be fierce and unrelenting in our push for 9/11 truth and justice. And -- though it may seem paradoxical -- with a 9/11 Truth and Reconciliation Commission as an end-game, I believe we might get there alot quicker than if we demand the heads of all those involved in 9/11.

I am not talking about going easy on the bad guys. They've got to come totally clean or they get life in prison or worse. But I am talking about doing something that actually might work.

I'm also, frankly, talking about turning lemons into lemonade. 9/11 was an act of tremendous evil and deceit. But through the idea of a 9/11 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, we might be able to use 9/11 to wake up America and the world to the secret history of false flag terror, the true nature of governments and manipulation, and the possibilities for a better society. We might be able to confess our sins as a nation, and to -- perhaps for the first time ever -- truly start living up to the ideals expressed by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.


When is the time to hold a 9/11 "T &R" Commission?

Kevin Barrett, co-founder of Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, argues that we cannot make a T & R real until we have more leverage. As Kevin told me in an email:

"You may recall that what caused regime change in South Africa was fear of increasing societal chaos and an eventual "bloodbath" -- and that the Truth & Reconciliation Commission was set up AFTER the regime change, as a way of exposing and healing past crimes. Having a new regime willing and able to prosecute the members of the old regime was a precondition to getting people to come forward in return for amnesty."

"I don't see how talking about T&R now is going to have much effect. Most of the population still hasn't understood the magnitude of the crime, and will have to work through feelings of anger when they do understand it. As I see it, the progression will be: first, a large enough slice of the population is howling for the perps' heads; then, regime change is forced on the perps by powerful but non-directly-complicit folks, backed by the angry masses and the prospect of an ungovernable society without a shred of governmental legitimacy; and finally, after the threat of prosecution is credible, T&R is set up to heal and get the full truth."

"So a big part of our job now is to take the fear/anger instigated by 9/11 and turn it into pure, righteous anger against the perps."

I think Kevin has a realistic view of the timing of a 9/11 Truth & Reconciliation commission. However, I also believe that by deciding on a T &R as our end-game, we can encourage some high-powered people -- perhaps including insiders to the 9/11 crimes -- into becoming allies in the struggle for truth and justice.

And by fighting courageously, tirelessly and fiercely for truth and justice, with compassion and mercy in our hearts, we will be acting according to the highest principles of what it means to be human, and we will bring about the best outcome for all.


Friday, May 12, 2006

How to Become a Dictator in 6 Easy Steps

Here's how to become a dictator in 6 easy steps:

1) Scare the people with false flag attacks, exaggerated threats of foreign and domestic enemies, etc.

2) Present yourself, the would-be dictator, as a strong leader who will protect the people. Specifically, have your political and media lackies set you up as the "Great Leader". You must then "reluctantly" agree to save the country, since you have been "called" by God and the people to do so

3) Have the lackies trumpet you, the Great Leader, and reinforce a constant state of fear and confusion in the people non-stop -- so that the people gradually transfer all of their allegiance to the Great Leader as the only one who can lead the protection efforts to save their backsides

4) Have your lackies viciously attack anyone who questions the Great Leader as undermining the effort to save their backsides, and as helping the "enemy" (if you haven't developed a scary enough myth about the "enemy", go back to step 1)

5) Then the people will become so brainwashed that they'll do the attacking for you of anyone who questions you, the Great Leader

6) Cover and let sit for 5 minutes, and serve with caviar and cabernet.

Oops, wrong recipe... here's number 6:

Rape and plunder your nation's wealth and that of the countries you decide to invade. Spread the wealth around liberally to reward your lackies who helped you get there -- who will include some large defense contractors, media companies, and other corporations, and throw some loot at others you need to bribe to maintain your power.

This method works in any country, in any culture, in any period of time.

Update: There are technically 10 steps, according to experts.


Thursday, May 11, 2006

Killing the Truth

It is well-known that people who are crazy may have a very strong drive to silence those who are sane. Why? Because the very words of a sane person challenge the psychotic beliefs of the crazy person, and are thus "dangerous" to his or her world view.

One well-known example of this is Mark David Chapman, who shot John Lennon because he thought that he was John Lennon. He killed Lennon because Lennon's very presence threatened his crazy world view.

Similarly, a judge in Cleveland has just ordered that an anti-war activist be sent for an involuntary psychiatric examination because of her beliefs that the Administration's war in Iraq was illegal.

Odd, right? But this is not an isolated incident. For example, a high school student at a private school in Texas took a test regarding the Middle East, and one of the questions was who was responsible for 9/11. One of the choices was George W. Bush, and the kid, having studied the facts regarding 9/11, chose that answer. The teacher referred the student to the principal, and the principal is sending him to a psychiatrist.

Additionally, anecdotal reports from across the country suggest that people are being fired, arrested, and even beat up for speaking out against the Administration.

Clearly, the government is using Stalinist tactics to crush dissent in this country. But something else is going on as well.

Some Americans are willing to use violence -- terminating an employee without cause, arresting people, or even physical violence -- to silence the voices of reason which are pointing out that the government has lied its way into war, has committed war crimes and vote fraud, and has killed 3,000 of its own people to justify its imperial agenda.

In other words, many Americans are acting just like Mark David Chapman, and trying to silence the voices of reason and sanity that challenge their crazy world view.

We -- the sane people who know what reality is -- have to act boldly to ensure that sanity prevails. The Mark David Chapmans of the world might not want to hear it, but we must force them to listen, and take away their ability to lash out against the truthtellers.


Tuesday, May 09, 2006

What Do We Want?

Preface: If you are an atheist, I'll remind you that 85% of the American population identifies itself as Christian, and millions more identify themselves as Jewish. If you are an atheist, you can look at the religious concepts in this essay metaphorically, as symbolic, and still look at the take-home message from a humanistic perspective of how best to help people and society.

Exposing the evidence which proves that 9/11 was an inside job is not enough. In fact, that is arguably the easy part.

Why? Because you can cite all the facts in the world, but unless the person you're talking with has some motivation to really listen, the facts will bounce off your listeners like bullets off a Kevlar vest.

Unless you offer something more attractive or something more reassuring, you can talk all you want, but your listeners really won't take anything in.

A Better World

Most importantly, if you provide a vision for a better world, people will listen to you. What do I mean?

The people who carried out 9/11 were obviously driven by greed -- 9/11 provided the "Pearl Harbor" like justification called for by the Project for a New American Century to oust Saddam Hussein and seize Iraq's oil, to fatten the coffers of defense contractors, and to consolidate power in America among a handful of executive branch people.

But they were also driven by fear. For example, as pointed out by 9/11 writer Michael Ruppert, people like Dick Cheney probably believed they were doing the right thing by carrying out a false flag operation in order to launch resource wars they thought were necessary to secure cheap oil to maintain the American "lifestyle".

Similarly, some of the perpetrators probably believed that China would become a huge threat to the U.S., and that we need to thwart China by denying it access to oil (with 9/11 providing the rationale, again, to seize the oil).

And some fundamentalist Christians and Jews authentically (although incorrectly) believe that Islam is an "evil" religion which must be annihilated, and that 9/11 was needed to justify the war on terror, just as Pearl Harbor was needed to justify America's entry into WWII.

Those are just the perpetrators of the attacks. In addition, millions of Americans are so driven by fear that they haven't been able to listen to any information challenging the official version of 9/11.

Core Issue

Indeed, Americans' fear stems from a larger historical context: we are afraid of losing what we have, and don't have a vision of where to go from here. For a long time, we've been the world's biggest economy. After WWII, we became not only a military but also an economic superpower. We had the number one market, the dollar was the world's currency, standards of living got better for many Americans, the middle class grew, and our goods were sold all over the world.

Now, with China turning into a military and economic superpower, with the destabilization of the world's climate, with the world's population heading towards 7 billion, and with the American standard of living falling (remember when there was only one working parent and most middle class people could buy a home?), Americans are drifting and rudderless, without a vision to unify and motivate us.

And without a shared set of values and priniciples, America is a house divided, with no common purpose to unify and motivate us in these tough times.

So what do we do?

View from the Left

Rabbi Michael Lerner, a prominent liberal Rabbi, recently said that we should turn 9/11 truth into a force for positive change. In an essay entitled “What If We Succeed in Exposing 9/11 as a Fraud...What Next?” (published in 9/11 and the American Empire: Jews, Christians and Muslims Speak Out -- Interlink, fall 2006), urges the 9/11 truth movement to develop a framework including:

“specific suggestions for how to repair the damage done by these crimes, or else risk the debate being defined by the media that are more concerned to prove the viability of the system than to change it.”

Rabbi Lerner worries that a 9/11 truth triumph could prove a hollow victory without a big picture, positive vision:

“We risk throwing one tyrant out of office only to find that the system of tyranny has actually survived and even been strengthened in the process. That is why the time is now, even as the courageous writers in this volume are still trying to obtain a forum for this important public discussion, for others of us to be developing a positive vision of what to do next once the details of what happened are exposed and those involved are being brought to trial.”

Lerner argues that prosecuting the American architects of the 9/11 attacks could provide an opportunity for positive social change:

“In fact, the kind of psychic trauma that would happen were the charges of intentional involvement in 9/11 by the president, vice president, and other high office holders or leaders of our security apparatus ever proved in a court of law would almost certainly open up political space for a serious discussion of
the kinds of radical changes I’m suggesting in the direction of our approach to foreign policy and homeland security.”

Similarly, the liberal Christian leader and activist William Sloane Coffin spoke similar words shortly before his death. Praising the research of the prominent theologian and 9/11 truth advocate David Ray Griffin, Coffin concluded his statement:


View From the Right

Conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts and Steven Jones stress that the current administration is betraying traditional American and religious values.

They -- and many others -- call for an abandonment of false labels of "Republican", "conservative" and "patriotism", and demand that we walk our talk, do what is authentically moral, and act with real principle.

True conservatives consider false flag terrorism, lying our way into imperial wars, and repealing our Constitution to be treasonous.

And true conservative leaders demand that our country be run using the compass of morality and principle. They point out that there are some values which never change, no matter how high-tech we become, how big the population grows, no matter what challenges we face, or what the latest fad or cultural flavor is.

Let's Try Democracy

I had an economics professor whose solution to environmental issues was brilliant. He argued that if someone wanted to build a new factory in a town, then everyone in the town and surrounding area should be polled.

People would be told very directly the number of new jobs which would be created by the factory, the effect on the local economy, the likely number of additional deaths per year from cancer, and the costs to clean up the water supply once it was polluted.

Then the people would vote, and make their decision.

That struck me as a very refreshing way to implement democracy on a direct level.

Similarly, we should engage in a very honest dialog. Let's get beyond this false left-right, democrat-republican, liberal-conservative dichotomy. Those terms, as they are used today, are completely meaningless.

Let's talk about what we want for America, and what we are willing to do to get that. What shared values can we agree upon? What shared vision can inspire us -- all of us?

And let's openly discuss what we are willing to do to reach that vision. Are we willing to commit false flag terrorism? To cook the intelligence? To torture innocent farmers who were at the wrong place at the wrong time (some of those tortured at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were innocent farmers caught up in sweeps or "sold" by others for a fee)? Are we willing to launch nuclear weapons which -- despite the propaganda -- will kill and injure alot of people?

Its time to openly and honestly debate these issues, and then decide for ourselves.

If we don't do this, America will be destroyed by people making decisions for us. Such people may think they are doing what's in our best interests. Or they may be horrible, greedy or even insane people.


Unless we learn to act like people living in a democracy, and taking responsibility for our country's decisions, then the people who are running things in our absence (in the vaccum created by our failure to participate) will destroy it.

From Siblings to Adults

It is time to stop living like a nation of brothers believing that the "unseen hand" of capitalism will make everything right. It is time to stop living like a nation of sisters who believe that the "divine father" will make sure that we all ride into the sunset and live the Hollywood, happy ending.

Remember the story of the guy who is in a flood? He prays to God to save him. Then a neighbor shouts from his rooftop "Here's a rope -- grab on!". The guy responds "no, God will save me". Then someone in a rowboat rows by shouting "get in!" The guy responds "no, God will save me". Finally a helicopter flies by, but the guy waives it away, saying "no, God will save me". The guy drowns and goes to Heaven. St. Peter says "why are you here?" The guy responds "I was waiting for God to save me!" St. Peter said "we sent you a rope, a rowboat and a helicopter ... what were you waiting for?!"

We can't be like this guy. God has given us free will, intelligence, imagination, a mouth and ears to communicate with, and hands to work with.

THESE are the tools which God has given us to solve our problems. If we don't solve them, we will be like the guy who drowns in the flood.

It is time to grow up and take responsibility for ourselves. WE have to figure out what we as a people and a nation want, and how we are going to get there.

If we do so, 9/11 will have a silver lining. The horrible nightmarish crime which finally wakes us up from our slumber as the governed children and allows us to take the reigns into our own hands.

If we do not, then 9/11 will be the first step towards the destruction of our nation, as the Reichstag fire was the first step towards the destruction of Germany.

Grow up or blow up: its our choice.

God has given us the tools to grow up. Indeed, God wants us to grow up. It is part of the Divine Plan.

God is a good parent: He does not want to keep us as helpless, frightened and confused children (only our abusive experience has led us towards the belief that God would want that).

God is unimaginably fierce and powerful, but also inconceivably loving. If we have not experienced both aspects of God, it is because of the shortcomings of our parents -- it has nothing to do with any lack in God.

Does a loving parent want us to remain helpless and dependent our whole lives? Of course not!

Similarly, God wants us to exercise our free will and -- while always remaining thankful, grateful and mindful of Him -- to make our own decisions and to use ethical, principled means to carry them out.

Just as God wants us to be his hands in the world to do justice, he wants us to be his construction manager in the world, to fill in and implement his Divine Plan. For God is the best "parent" in the universe -- one who lets his kids "help" so that they will learn for themselves. God is too generous to have filled in every line, every door and every window on the blueprints (even though He could have easily done so).

Bottom line: God purposely left his Plan unfinished so that we could fill in the details. God gave us free will so that we could fill in the blanks in His plan. He is loving enough to allow us to "help" complete the Plan.

In fact, when we look to God for all of the answers instead of finding some of them ourselves, we our disobeying God's Plan. Why? Because helplessness which is endearing in a 1-year old is dysfunctional in a 50-year old. If a 50-year old is still living at home without a job or romantic relationship, she hasn't followed her parents' instructions to figure out what she wants to do and do it herself.

Similarly, if we are still assuming that the "unseen hand", the heavenly Father will solve all of our problems, we aren't following the Divine Plan. Rather, we are still "living at home" in a childish stage of life.

It is time for us as individuals and as a nation to "move out of the house" and to move into the next phase of history. Indeed, we are literally now being called to flesh out HIS story (history) and to start writing our OWN story - one that incorporates the best of true conservatism and true liberalism, one which we -- as children of God with free will -- decide we want.

If we do that, 9/11 truth and justice will follow as a natural byproduct. If we do not, 9/11 truth and justice will have a very small chance of succeeding. Because without a better vision, people will not be willing to look at facts which challenge their world view.


Monday, May 08, 2006

Chomsky Gets an F

Noam Chomsky, in explaining why he is not interested in 9/11, makes a number of basic logical errors. For example:

• Chomsky assumes that nothing like a 9/11 inside-job scenario has ever happened before. He might be very knowledgeable about many parts of U.S. foreign policy, but Chomsky doesn't know the first thing about the frequently used tactic of false flag terrorism

• Chomsky argues that "the administration would [not] have been so utterly insane as to try something like this". Really? I guess faking WMDs and other intelligence, spying on grandmothers and other innocent Americans without a warrant, torturing people, repealing large chunks of the Constitution, and gearing up for more "elective" wars -- perhaps using nukes -- is sane? Again, If Chomsky knew how many governments have committed (and gotten away with) false flag attacks, he wouldn't think it was so insane for the American government to carry out the 9/11 attacks to justify its pre-planned agenda

• Chomsky says that civil and mechanical engineers are needed to determine why the Twin Towers collapsed. But civil and mechanical engineers (and physicists) have already determined that the Towers (and building 7) were brought down by controlled demolition

• Chomsky assumes that 9/11 truth takes energy away from more important activist activities. But every Constitution-revoking law, executive order, and regulation, and every act of military aggression uses 9/11 as its excuse. 9/11 is the excuse and justification for everything Chomsky dislikes. 9/11 is the mortar and cement which props up this regime and which makes it impossible to take any part of its agenda away

Noam Chomsky is widely accepted as one of the smartest guys around. He basically invented the field of linguistics. The New York Times called him "arguably the most important intellectual alive". And when he was on the Charlie Rose show last year, he demolished Rose in debate, and Rose was left whining "How do you know all that?" So Chomsky's brains are not the problem.

Instead, Chomsky's mistakes in basic logic and faulty assumptions regarding 9/11 show that even someone brilliant in one area can make monumental mistakes in another because he has failed to look at the facts for himself. Professor Chomsky may have "written the book" on some subjects, but he gets an F regarding 9/11.

The take-home message is that -- no matter how smart and successful you are in your given field -- you've got to look at the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job for yourself before dismissing it out of hand.


Sunday, May 07, 2006

Questioning 9/11 Is a Waste of Time Which Distracts us from the Real Problems, Right?

Some people argue that questioning 9/11 is a waste of time -- which distracts us from the many real problems our country is facing.

There's the economic downturn, the Iraq war, terrorist threats, loss of liberties and a lot of other problems that need fixing. So stop wasting time and distracting everyone with all this stuff about 9/11, right?

Well, before I address that argument, let me ask you one question: how did we get here? How did we get into the economic downturn, the Iraq war, the war on terror, spying and the loss of liberties, and the other problems?


Let's start with Iraq. Why are we in Iraq? WMDs, you say!

Actually, President Bush's March 18, 2003 letter to Congress authorizing the use of force against Iraq, includes the following paragraph.
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
In other words, it was actually the White House's false linkage of Iraq and 9/11 which allowed the Bush administration to claim that Congress had voted for the Iraq war. So looking at who was actually behind 9/11 (not Saddam Hussein) is important in connection with the Iraq war.

Tortured Logic

Likewise, torture is based upon the belief that we can stop future acts of terrorism if we get information from bad guys, and that torture is a good way to get that information.

What has allowed Americans to accept torture - something that runs contrary to traditional American values?

9/11. The September 11th attacks scared Americans into think that terrorists were out to get us, and that we had to get tough to stop them.

But knowing who really attacked us is important if we are to stop them, right? Remember the old saying: "You have to know your enemy to beat him"?

The following facts are therefore important:
(See also this video).

Without even going into the claims by many high-level military leaders, intelligence officials, scientists, engineers and others that rogue elements within the U.S. government aided and abetted the 9/11 attack, it is clear from the above-described claims that a foreign government may have done so.

It would thus be important to determine which government or governments were involved, so that we know who to interrogate. Doesn't that make sense?

(Note: It is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss the fact that the government has overblown the entire terror threat, or that torture doesn't actually work).

War on Terror

Until we determine with certainly which governments or nationalities were actually behind 9/11, then how can we determine which countries we should treat as close allies and which countries we should treat as enemies?

The Economy

The economy is on everyone's mind right now. What possible connection can there be between the economy and 9/11 -- when 9/11 occurred years ago?

Well, many top economists - such as Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz - say that the high cost of war in Iraq is the cause of the current slowdown in the U.S. Therefore, if the false linkage of Iraq and 9/11 was the reason Congress "authorized" war, and if the war is the reason for the current economic downturn, then false statements about 9/11 are one of the reasons our country is currently in an economic slump.

Spying and Loss of Liberties

The government claims that it is spying on Americans and otherwise curtailing our rights because it is a new, "post-9/11 world", and they have to keep us safe. The government is spending many billions of dollars to carry out its spying and other supposed anti-terror programs. (It is beyond the scope of this essay to go into detail about the fact that the government's spying on Americans began before 9/11 -- confirmed here and here -- or that many other programs related to the "war on terror" including the drafting of the Patriot Act, actually commenced before 9/11).

Wouldn't the spying and anti-terror programs be more effective if we had confidence in who we should be watching out for? By way of analogy, let's say that the spying efforts had been justified on the anthrax attacks which occurred shortly after 9/11. Because the letters which contained the anthrax sounded like they were written by a radical Muslim, a spying program based on the anthrax attacks would probably focus on arabic folks, right? Well, it is now beyond dispute that the anthrax actually came from a U.S. military base and was of a type that can only be manufactured by the military.

Similarly, if we want to protect America, wouldn't it make sense that we'd want to be 100% certain we know who was behind 9/11?

Is History Repeating?

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. See this History Channel video (if you have trouble playing the clip, it is because the website hosting the clip requires you to download the clip before playing it). Similarly, the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, staged murder on their own people and attacks on their own resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

Do you believe you could have stopped the government from torturing communists after the Reichstag fire, by convincing people that Germans are a 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?

Do you imagine you could have stopped the brownshirts and loss of domestic rights?

I believe not, not without first exposing that the Reichstag fire - the single thing which allowed the German parliament and other institutions to hand Hitler total power. The German's were in shock, and rallied around their "strong" leader.

Or not exposing that Operation Himmler -- the event which caused the German people to rally around the invasion of Poland -- was a false flag operation.

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. Both peoples have forgotten to look at the root causes of their troubles, and have thus let themselves be manipulated and repressed.


Given the fact that the Iraq war, the war on terror, the economic downturn, torture, spying and other loss of liberties all have strong connections to 9/11, any reasonable person must conclude that knowing with certainty exactly what happened on September 11th is vital for America. As vital as investigating the Reichstag fire and Operation Himmler should have been for the German people.

Will we make the same mistakes that the German people did, by trying to fight with the surface manifestations of their problems? Or will we investigate the root cause of our problems, the place where our country lost its way, the justification for all of the bad things which are happening to us and which our government is doing: September 11th?

The choice is ours.

See also this short talk on why 9/11 is important


Saturday, May 06, 2006

Neoliberals Are Neither

If you're a liberal, the word "neoliberalism" sounds like a new, better liberalism -- based on liberal social policies, but with a stronger, more realistic twist. Right?

If you're a conservative, you probably assume that a "neoliberal" is a liberal trying to act respectable, maybe a hippie in a business suit. Right?

In reality, neoliberalism is not really liberal. Indeed, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics (if you don't know it, most leading neoconservatives are former followers of Trotsky communism).

Neoliberalism is, in fact, hostile to many of the things that democrats and liberals hold dear. As Wikipedia puts it:

"In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism. But Reagan was never described in this way in domestic US political discussion, where the term is most commonly applied to moderate Democrats like the Democratic Leadership Council."
The DLC is who decides who gets elected on democratic tickets.

Indeed, leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently said :

"Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to tame them and make them safe for liberalism."

And as Philip Giraldi writes: “Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn’t matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public, weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way”.

So neoconservatives are not conservative and neoliberals are not liberal. But neocons and neolibs are very similar. Neocons are arguably alot more similar to neolibs than to true conservatives; neolibs are more similar to neocons than to real liberals.

Do you get it? Both the republican and democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations richer and expand the American empire.

There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which "branch" of the party is in power. If its the democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards minorities, and a little more patient push towards military conquest and empire.

If its the republican branch, the mask contains markings invoking conservative Christianity, there's a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, and more centralization of power in the president.

But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.

Until Americans stop getting distracted by the republican versus democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards war, empire and -- inevitably as with any country which extends too far -- collapse.

Neoliberalism is neither "new" or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it or not, it is still an iron fist.

A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.

The title of this essay focuses on neoliberals since many Americans are already starting to wake up to the true nature of the neoconservatives. The true nature of neoliberalism has remained better hidden.


Friday, May 05, 2006

If Its Broken, Why Haven't They Fixed It?

Fort Knox is robbed in an unusual way. Burglars break in through an air conditioning vent and shine a laser at the video cameras to "blind" them. Billions are stolen.

The head of Fort Knox (let's call him the "Chief") announces that no one could have foreseen this type of burglary.

The commission investigating the robbery -- stacked with the Chief's business partners and friends -- finds that the break-in was unexpected. The commission makes numerous suggestions on how to thwart similar burglaries by installing motion detectors in the air conditioning vents and main vault.

Independent researchers, however, discover that there have been many previous break-ins at repositories of valuable items where the burglars crawled in through the air conditioning vents and shined lasers at video cameras.

They also discover that the Fort's security system would normally have caught the burglars in the act and alerted the military in time to stop the burglary, but the system was undergoing a series of "safety tests" that night -- including some that were similar to what actually occurred -- and so the military assumed that the alarms were part of the test.

There had been safety tests before, but never so many at the same time. The Chief personally scheduled multiple, overlapping tests for the night of the robbery, and then oversaw the operation of the tests and the Fort's reaction to those tests.

Years pass, but the Chief does not follow the commission's recommendations. He fails to install any motion detectors.

That's circumstantial evidence that the Chief was in on the heist. Why? Because if the robbery really had not been foreseeable and if he was innocent, he would have a very strong incentive to install motion detectors to prevent further robberies at the Fort. His personal reputation, the government's reputation, and its gold reserves would all depend on it. You can bet that he'd shore up the Fort's defenses.


Let's take it a step further: the Chief's personal bank account has suddenly gotten alot bigger after the heist. That helps to prove he was in on it, right? But it also shows that one of the reasons the Chief is leaving the Fort's defenses in a compromised state now is so that additional heists can occur, and he'll get more loot.


Similarly, the 9-11 Commission -- stacked with cronies of the Bush administration (like executive director Philip Zelikow (an administration insider whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of "public myths" thought to be true, even if not actually true, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission's inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked - see this article and this article) found that the attacks were unexpected, despite very strong evidence that they were not, and despite the fact that the government scheduled numerous, overlapping war games for 9/11 -- some involving a plane flying into a building and others involving hijackings.

And even though Bin Laden allegedly masterminded 9/11, the CIA commander in charge of the capture that the U.S. let Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan. If one particular criminal had done the first crime and was known to want to do additional crimes, wouldn't failing to capture him when they had the chance indicate something wasn't right?

And U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated the very "highest levels" of Al Qaeda and knew the attacks were coming, and yet failed to stop them.

And while the 9-11 Commission made numerous recommendations on how to prevent future terrorist attacks -- many of them simple and inexpensive to implement -- the Bush administration has failed to do so (and see this). Moreover, he and his allies are actively blocking efforts to do so.

Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security, instead of protecting vulnerable targets, has instead randomly made up lists which include kangaroo centers, petting zoos and ice cream parlors as high-priority terrorist threats. And the administration is refusing to fill important positions at DHS so that our security can be protected.

Just like with the Chief, the current administration's failure to make the recommended and preventative changes -- many of them cheap fixes -- despite billions being spent on supposed "homeland security", is strong evidence that the administration was in on it. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security is now claiming that many more terrorist attacks are "inevitable". But they wouldn't be inevitable if the government had beefed up security and kept its eye on the ball, right? I mean, if you were told that it was "inevitable" that a bunch of robbers would come break into your bank (or your house), wouldn't you move heaven and earth to strengthen your ability to defend your home?

The administration has received so many perks from 9/11: justification for wars in Afghanistan (where a huge oil pipeline benefiting American companies was being held up by the Taliban) and Iraq (one of the world's largest oil producers), permanent military bases in the Middle East, and consolidation of power at home.

And by failing to implement the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission, the administration keeps open the possibility that another "terrorist" attack will occur which will whip the now-dissenting American public into line, justify the invasion of Iran, and allow for the suspension of our remaining constitutional rights.

The bottom line is that the administration's, like the Chief's, inaction to fix the alleged holes in security which allowed supposedly unforeseeable crimes to occur shows that they are guilty of the crimes, and hope to benefit from additional crimes in the future.

And if foreign terrorists really had carried out 9/11, why is the government using all of its resources spying on innocent people who obviously have never met a terrorist in their life? Indeed, even insider and war hawk Zbigniew Brzezinski and other leading experts are now admitting that the war on terror is a racket.


Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Storytelling is the Key to 9/11 Truth

Trial lawyers know that cases are won largely by the use of human stories and emotions, and not logic. Specifically, MOST people are swayed by emotion, and trials have to be argued with emotion and storytelling (logic also has to be used, especially to reach the minority of jurors who decide based strictly upon logic). All of the leading books on trial strategy say this.

That's also why so many articles in newspapers start out with a human story, before moving on to the facts: most readers will get turned off early in the article if it doesn't start with a personal, "human interest" story.

Psychologists who study how people make decisions say the same thing. For example, a recent article by a political psychologist (which is naive and wrong about Democrats being the good guys and other issues, but does get the basic psychology right) states:
If you appeal primarily to people's reason without first getting them to feel the significance of the issue you're talking about, they're not going to be interested. From an evolutionary standpoint, our emotions play two major roles. One, our emotions appear to capture our attention, so if you don't make emotionally compelling arguments, if you don't use stories or examples to grab listeners, they won't hear important things you have to say. The other role of emotion, which is probably most crucial, is that emotions motivate us -- positive feelings pull us towards things that are generally good for us, and negative emotions move us away from things that are generally bad for us. They're not flawless, by any means, and that's why reason is so helpful to help us tell the difference between a false smile and a real smile, or between a plan that makes sense and a plan that doesn't.
Logic is crucial in fighting for 9/11 truth and justice. Unless we stick with the most provable facts, the most credible speakers, and the most plausible theories, we'll be discredited.

But without emotion, we'll also lose . . .

We have to learn, in addition to using rigorous logic, to tell human stories about:

- High-level military leaders being furious at the deceptions by the current government

- People's fear of terrorism, and the real way to protect them

- Specific people being manipulated by false flag terror (for example, the Italians manipulated by the U.S. and NATO's Operation Gladio, or the Germans being manipulated by the Gleiwitz incident)

- Heroic, dying first responders being ignored by the government

- Grieving family member

- Loss of freedom

- The danger to our children of further false flag terrorism, fascism, and repression

- Other important themes which are emotional and thematic, as well as being true

We all have to learn how to become better storytellers (and at the same time, we have stick to only the most credible facts). Only if we do that will we win the battle for 9/11 truth and justice.

I believe that filmmakers like the Loose Change guys, We Are Change, and others are effective largely because they are good storytellers. The same is true of the artists who create effective visuals to help spread 9/11 truth. Storytelling is not just a verbal thing; it can be visual as well (indeed, top trial lawyers use sophisticated multimedia presentations to tell their story to the jury).

And some speakers already have world-class communication skills, such as David Ray Griffin, Dr. Bob Bowman, Alex Jones and Dr. Steven Jones. These people are so effective at communicating that they might not need to consciously think about the issues raised in this essay. But for the rest of us, the millions of 9/11 truth activists who are not exceptional communicators, focusing on the emotional stories and themes as well as credible facts is crucial.

Of course, some speakers can be as intellectual as they like: if they are a highly-credentialed expert, then their resumes speak so well for them that emotional intelligence (what has been called "EQ") is not so important.

Finally, psychological studies reveal an important sidenote to this discussion. Specifically, because of the way the brain works, false statements made early and often tend to be believed. And new studies reveal that attempts to debunk the false statements with facts actually tend to reinforce the myths in people's minds.

As summarized in an article in the Washington Post:
The psychological insights yielded by the research, which has been confirmed in a number of peer-reviewed laboratory experiments, have broad implications for public policy. The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.

This phenomenon may help explain why large numbers of Americans incorrectly think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi. While these beliefs likely arose because Bush administration officials have repeatedly tried to connect Iraq with Sept. 11, the experiments suggest that intelligence reports and other efforts to debunk this account may in fact help keep it alive.

The Post concludes that the studies show that "rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth".

Therefore, starting the discussion with a personal and human story about the Italian people who were deceived by the false flag operation known as Operation Gladio, or the German people who were deceived into supporting an invasion of Poland based upon the Gleiwitz false flag attack or by giving power to Hitler by the Reichstag fire may have the additional benefit of planting a new concept in people's minds -- the secret use of false flag terrorism by Western governments --
rather than reinforce false ideas they may have about 9/11 being solely carried out by Islamic terrorists.

Further thinking needs to be done about these emotional issues, and psychologists, social scientists, marketing experts and trial lawyers within the 9/11 truth movement have to recommend the best way to promote 9/11 truth based upon these concepts.