Who Should We Trust?
A friend asked me a great question:
"[In the last couple of weeks,] the whole 911 truth movement seems to have gone to the dogs; everyone is attacking everyone else and calling them names. How to know the genuine article from the counterfeit?"
Indeed, many people are calling other people disinformation agents, or untrustworthy. How can we figure out who to trust and who not to trust? Of course, if we can independently verify whether someone's statements are true or false, that would be very helpful. But if we don't have the physics or engineering or photographic expertise to be able to judge someone's claims for ourselves, then how do we know whether that person is trustworthy?
I don't have any definitive answers. But my initial thought is that we should ask the following questions about someone, which will help us determine whether or not they are trustworthy.
Are they Putting Things in Context?
First, ask whether the person is helping to put 9/11 in historical context. For example, are they educating people about the history of false flag terror in Western countries? If you don't know what "false flag" means, start here.
Brzezinski, PNAC and the Bush administration are all important topics also. However, in my opinion, they are solely recent manifestations of the ancient history of false flag terror, which goes all the way back to ancient Rome. Educating people about the big picture concept of false flag terror is key.
If they are frequently discussing the larger historical context of false flag attacks, then they are doing a lot of good by educating the public about this important "secret history", and thus making it less likely that future false flag attacks will be carried out.
Alex Jones, for example, speaks frequently on false flag terror by Western governments. Therefore, he is doing a lot of good in educating Americans and others about this vital issue. (These examples are meant as illustrations only, and are not meant to endorse some leaders or exclude others.)
Are they Pulling a Rove?
If someone spends more time attacking others within the 9/11 truth movement than "moving the ball forward" by doing original research, writing, or activism, then they are not being very helpful. Divide and conquer is an age-old strategy of those who wish to maintain the status quo.
If someone is spending most of their energy attacking others for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), their nationality, or other issues irrelevant to 9/11, then they are being more disruptive than helpful.
Karl Rove's technique is to attack and slime any messenger who is speaking the truth and saying something which criticizes Rove or his employers. Whether someone claims to be liberal, conservative or whatever, if they are pulling a Rove, they are not helping the movement.
What Have You Done For Me Lately?
The cheesy 80's song "What Have You Done for Me Lately?" should be one of the mottos of the truth movement. Why?
Obviously, we should judge people on their past work. Was their research accurate? Their writing or speaking powerful? Their strategies effective?
But someone might have done great work in the past, but then lost focus, gotten sloppy, burned out, or sold out.
So we should look not only at their past work, but whether they are becoming more and more helpful to the 9/11 truth movement (in which case they should be supported) or less and less helpful (in which case they should receive less support).
As one example, David Ray Griffin's work is only getting more effective, with one of his new books being published by the Presbyterian Church's main publishing arm, and other new books receiving wide praise.
Are They Doing Good In Other Areas?
If a 9/11 activist is doing good work in other areas, I am personally going to trust him or her a little bit more.
As an example, a good friend of mine is a pediatrician (a kid-doctor). Even she has heard of Professor Steve Jones' solar cookers, because they are helping to alleviate hunger in poor, third-world countries. Steve Jones was doing good in the world even before he got involved in 9/11 research. That's one of the reasons that I trust him.
Are They Empowering Others?
My final question is whether someone is empowering others to help spread 9/11 truth and to save America from anti-democratic forces which threaten it.
Do they inspire others to action? Or do they imply that only they have the power to do it, and so everyone else should just sit back and support them? Or do they imply that its all hopeless?
The best leaders inspire others to take action and to become leaders themselves, to spread 9/11 truth and to help re-establish of the ideals of our founding fathers.
For example, Colonel Bob Bowman really knows how to rally a crowd, stir up their commitment and passion for 9/11 truth and justice, and for restoring democracy to America.
The above are my off-the-top-of-my-head tests for determining whether or not to trust someone.
More importantly, we have to learn to trust ourselves. But we also have to learn to admit when we've made a mistake and then to correct it (we all make mistakes; admitting when we're wrong is a sign of trustworthiness). We've already learned that governments may operate based on power-motives, violence and deception. This is the trust issue we all have to focus on: THE GOVERNMENT'S STORY OF 9/11 IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY.
Keep moving the ball of 9/11 truth forward yourself. This is largely a competition between those trying to wake up the American public and those trying to confuse, distract, scare, and intimidate the public into believing the official story about 9/11. So regardless of what the various "leaders" of the movement are doing, work as hard as you can yourself to promote the truth and demand justice. The power is with "we the people".