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.




6 Comments:

Anonymous James Redford said...

GeorgeWashington, we definitely do not need a new so-called "investigation." The facts already publicly available are quite enough to prove that the 9/11 attacks were staged from beginning to end by the U.S. government.

As I wrote elsewhere:

This idea being pushed by some in the 9/11 Truth movement to have more official hearings or "investigations" into the the 9/11 attacks is a bad idea. It promulgates the notion that peope need authority figures to tell them what to do and what to believe. In other words, that people can't come to the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job unless they're told that it's "official."

At best, the most good that could likely come out of such hearings or "investigations" is that the U.S. government perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks get caught in more lies and contradictions. But it's bad because it fosters the notion that people have to be told by people from on high what to think, which isn't conducive to the cause of truth.

Those who genuinely investigate the 9/11 attacks in-depth already know the U.S. government staged the attacks from beginning to end. The amount of publicly available hardcore evidence demonstrating this is truly staggering. People don't need to be told by some panel or commission what the claimed "truth" is. This worship of "authority figures" to tell us what is and isn't okay to believe is one of the main things that the 9/11 Truth movement is fighting against.

Our task is to educate our countrymen, neighbors, friends, and family as to what the truth is. Genuine change isn't going to come about by voting, or "working within the system," as it is a rigged system designed from the start to keep the ruling elite in power.

Genuine change will come about when enough people know the truth and simply fail to support the system anymore. Then voting will be irrelevant because there will be nothing to vote for, or to vote against.

What if the government held a war and no one showed up? That's the stage we need to reach, where the ruling elite simply lose their chain of command and are abandoned because the masses fail to follow them. The stage where their own soldiers and police no longer follow their orders.

The way to reach that stage is to simply speak the truth to people. When others learn the truth, they will be in a position to speak the truth to others. With more people speaking the truth, even more will join in because they see that they're not alone and isolated in holding this position. And so on, until just about everyone and their grandmother is talking about the fact that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks.

As it is now, we're not all that very far from that stage.

For more on this process, see √Čtienne de La Bo√©tie, Discours sur la servitude volontaire; ou Contr'un, likely written in 1552 or 1553, first published in full in 1576. An English translation by Harry Kurz with an introduction by Murray N. Rothbard, The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (New York: Free Life Editions, 1975), is available at http://www.mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf .

5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

48% Believe the government is not covering things up, but 43% don't know about WTC7 (question 25)...

WTC7=October Surprise?

namaste2you

11:34 AM  
Anonymous New Pearl Harbor blog said...

These polls and this 'social proof' thing is very powerfull. I think it's one of our best tools for truth breakout.

I would like to see an article that presents all the Social Proof from several different countries and communities. I know the canadians are skeptic of 9/11, and the same goes for the germans.

Could we make a story about all these 9/11 polls? I think that would be powerfull.

nph

4:11 PM  
Blogger LDS Patriot said...

Social proof works both ways, meaning, 2/3 accept the real facts and not the fictitious fantasys of "truthers".

12:32 PM  
Anonymous notepad said...

Pre 911 Speech (9/10/2001)

The topic today is an adversary that poses a threat, a serious threat, to the security of the United States of America. This adversary is one of the world's last bastions of central planning. It governs by dictating five-year plans. From a single capital, it attempts to impose its demands across time zones, continents, oceans and beyond. With brutal consistency, it stifles free thought and crushes new ideas.

Perhaps this adversary sounds like the former Soviet Union, but that enemy is gone: our foes are more subtle and implacable today.

The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy.

Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on.

Let's make no mistake: The modernization of the Department of Defense is a matter of some urgency. In fact, it could be said that it's a matter of life and death, ultimately, every American's.

That's why we're here today challenging us all to wage an all-out campaign to shift Pentagon's resources from bureaucracy to the battlefield...

We know the adversary. We know the threat. And with the same firmness of purpose that any effort against a determined adversary demands, we must get at it and stay at it.

Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.

Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security.

Business enterprises die if they fail to adapt, and the fact that they can fail and die is what provides the incentive to survive. But governments can't die, so we need to find other incentives for bureaucracy to adapt and improve.

Today's announcements are only the first of many. We will launch others ourselves, and we will ask Congress for legislative help as well.

...this effort demands personal and sustained attention at the highest levels ...leaders are experienced, talented, and determined. I am delighted they are on our team. I would not want to try to stop them from what they came into this Department to do. I expect them to be enormously successful...

To transform the Department, we must look outside this building as well.

Let me conclude with this note. Some may ask, defensively so, will this war on bureaucracy succeed where others have failed? To that I offer three replies. First is ...Change is hard. It's hard for some to bear, and it's hard for all of us to achieve.

...there will be real consequences from, and real resistance to, fundamental change. We have brought people on board who have driven similar change in the private sector. We intend to do so here.

...this effort will succeed because it must. We really have no choice. ...And let there be no mistake, it is a matter of life and death. So today we declare war on bureaucracy...

...there are those who will oppose our every effort ...Well, fine, if there's to be a struggle, so be it. ...if you do something, somebody's not going to like it, so be it. Our assignment is not to try to please everybody. A cab driver in New York City ought to be able to feel...

I have confidence that we can do it. It's going to be hard. There will be rough times. But it's also the best part of life to be engaged in doing something worthwhile.

Every person within earshot wants to be a part... I know it. You know it. Let's get about it.

Remarks as Delivered by Donald H. Rumsfeld, The Pentagon, Monday, September 10, 2001

Donald H. Rumsfeld's Pre 911 Speech


The next morning, September 11, 2001, The Pentagon as well as the WTC Towers in NYC came under attack.

Coincidence?

Allow a person to speak -- and listen carefully, they will tip their hand.

11:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good try, LDS Patriot.

Here's where you went wrong:

An October, 2006 (a year ago) poll found that 53% of Americans believed that the Bush Admin. was hiding something with respect to 9/11.

So, your claimed majority is actually an ever-diminishing minority of uninformed kooks who parrot the official government conspiracy theory ad nauseum, despite not having spent more than 20 hours (to be extraordinarily generous) doing research on the subject.

But, again; good try.

Also, your ability to come across as a thoughtful, deliberate, and well-educated person worth listening to was adversely affected by dint of your ridiculously basic spelling error.

Am I simply nitpicking here?

Believe me; intelligent, well-read folks would never manifest an error of such a 'primary-school' nature.

Did you go to any partys last weekend?
Can you name the three largest citys in China?
How many countrys have rates of illiteracy lower than the state in which you were raised?
You absolutely exude intelligence, so, please, tell us how many different universitys you have attended. It must be a high number -- surely in the twentys or thirtys, right?

Well, I'm going to get back to my research now. I'll let you slink off, utterly defeated and humiliated, to your world of comforting lies and "fantasys."


PS: Regarding your use of the term "real facts":
A fact, by definition, is 'real.'

You bonehead.

9:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home