Oh f*ck it, if he shows he shows, he he doesn’t then at least we tried.

Hey Godfather, I read your plea for 911 Truthers to join in addressing the issues of global poverty because this is “the single most important issue facing the world”, and while I agree that there is a good deal of validity to this message it seems that you are missing some important facts about 911.

You say “9/11 Truth is mainly a movement of middle -class white kids who think that it will revolutionize the entire world when the government of the US is shown to be a cabal run by the military industrial complex” .

I have many issues with this statement. I am a member of DC911 Truth, a group in which “middle class white kids” are barely represented. Our average age must be between 40 and 50, and our members, while mostly white also include black & brown. And as for the goal of showing that the US government is a cabal run by the military industrial complex this is a long way from the truth.

911 has the potential to confront people with the fact that our government, and most importantly the media from whom most of us get all of our information about the world, are liars and murderers - that they murdered 3,000 Americans, just like you, in order to fool the rest of us into supporting their global wars which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands more. The official version of the events of 911 is clearly and obviously a lie, and ordinary people can easily find this out for themselves by looking at information widely available from non-corporate sources. It is the process of discovering for yourself that you have been lied to, that enables individuals to become skeptical of all corporate information sources, and once an individual has taken this step, they never go back into the TV induced slumber that allows all of the other crimes against humanity (such as global poverty) to pass by unnoticed.

911 is unique in catalyzing this waking up process, as can be demonstrated by the fact that more than a third of all Americans (as shown by polling data) have so far woken up, despite the monolithic support of the official lie by all corporate media outlets and all politicians. This is unprecedented.

“The 9/11 truth movement is irrelevant on a global scale, as resistance to imperialism is done organically by the people who live in the countries that face imperialism daily. These are black and brown people who could give two shits about 9/11.”

Those who resist US imperialism overseas are blown to pieces by US munitions. We the people of the United States are the only people with the power to dismantle the imperial apparatus, and the fact that 911 is causing many of us to take up this cause must eventually communicate to the resistance movements overseas. In the same way that overseas activists could give two shits about 911, most Americans who are still in TV slumber could give two shits about the repressed minorities who are often characterized as terrorists by their TV masters. Before they can be induced to care for the well being of Palestinians or poor Africans and Asians, it is essential that the ignorance and apathy of the American masses be overcome. This requires a complete repudiation of the propaganda sources that are a trusted part of the daily lives of millions of Americans. Currently only 911 truth can do this. You must be aware that major barrier that is forever shattered by 911 truth - that “our government would never do such awful things” is the major barrier to realizing the truth about global poverty and injustice.

I think I already covered your third point.

“Disparaging Chomsky simply because he disagrees with you on the ACT of 9/11, not in resistance to the policies that come after it or analyzing the roots of those policies, is highly juvenile.”

Chomsky is not only guilty of supporting the official story of 911, but also of the Kennedy Assassination, and the fact of false flag terrorism in the Oklahoma City bombings, World Trade Center 93, London 7/7, Madrid and more. This is because his major thesis that the US and other Imperial powers “deserve” these atrocities due to their past support of imperial and colonial policies is fundamentally inadequate and divorced from reality. It appears to me that Chomsky is tolerated (and paid) by the elites he disparages precisely because his critique is largely harmless to their interests. So it is much more than a disagreement over the facts of 911 that is the source of my disillusionment - I was a huge fan of Chomsky for many years, but the extent of elite control of the so-called opposition - Chomsky, Air America, The Nation and others, has been exposed by 911 and they are no longer deserving of respect.

While it has been “firmly established that the US is capable of anything” this fact is not widely known, and remains the view of no more than a fringe group. A fringe group cannot and will never topple the global financial oligarchies. This requires a mass movement, and 911 has the potential to be the source of that mass movement. Again, I think I have already covered the reasons why this is so, and the fact that a mass movement is building around this issue.

I have been politically aware for many years. I was a hunger activist, and an advocate for change more than twenty-five years ago. I was responsible for bringing microcredit to the forefront of global efforts to eradicate poverty, and this has brought the possibility of an end to poverty for hundreds of millions of people and continues to expand rapidly all over the world. I have also been a full time environmental activist. I am a vegetarian and I don’t drive a car. I meditate. And in twenty five years of really full-on activity I have never seen an issue with the capacity to instigate global change that comes close to the opportunity presented by 911 truth. Come on Godfather, its time to evolve.

What could be better than that? I am only half kidding.

911blogger is not a debate forum and we have in the past had to shut down threads due to fighting, name calling, personal attacks, etc.

Please keep it civil and debate like adults or this thread will be locked too.  If you're into namecalling, take it elsewhere, 9/11 Truth is too important an issue for that sort of nonsense.

Get to it.

Most american voters don't know how to vote, because they don't know any thing about politics, they think Democrats are very different from the Republican Party, but both parties and that's why they will never cure poverty, because under capitalism puts bread on table for about 20% of society and kills the remaining 80% with high taxes, high bills, no medical insurance, etc. and that's no democracy at all, capitalism is like a monarchy

Socialism is about workers’ control

By Paul D’Amato | February 22, 2002 | Page 9

FOR MANY people, socialism is popularly defined as the degree of state intervention in the economy. Societies with strong social spending programs and some state-run industries were considered moderately socialist--like Sweden. Societies with total state control of the economy--like Russia before 1989--were fully socialist, or "communist."

The existence of a more or less expansive social safety net may indicate a strong history of class struggle, but concessions wrested from a capitalist state do not render that society socialist.

History shows that reform socialists who have sought public office have ended up not transforming society, but themselves being transformed into capitalism’s left flank of defense.

French socialists François Mitterand in the 1980s and Lionel Jospin in the 1990s implemented policies that have helped to gut France’s social safety net--and saved the French bosses’ system to stay profitable.

The degree of state ownership likewise is not a good measure of socialism. State-run industries under capitalism do not operate as islands of socialism, but on the same principles of profit and loss as the private sector.

As Frederick Engels wrote more than 100 years ago: "A kind of spurious socialism has arisen…that…declares all state ownership…to be socialistic."

"Certainly," he continues, "if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon…must be numbered among the founders of socialism."

Even total state ownership, Engels argued, is not socialism. "The transformation…into state ownership, does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces," he wrote. "The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalistic machine, the state of the capitalists…The more it proceeds to take over productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit."

Workers remain exploited in the same way as before, only their employer becomes not General Motors or Ford, but the state. "The capitalist relation is not done away with," writes Engels, "it is rather brought to a head."

The question of nationalization is not unimportant. But so long as nationalization is based upon production and competition on a world market, it will be capitalist nationalization.

Hence Stalin’s Russia--where workers had ceased to have any control over society, where the state became stronger and more repressive, and where the goal was to create a competitive military machine--had nothing to do with socialism.

For Marx, nationalization could only be a weapon in the transformation of society in a socialist direction because it represented the expropriation of society’s productive forces by the working class. Socialism for Marx was the collective seizure of political power by the associated producers--the "self-emancipation of the working class."

The question of whether socialism exists therefore does not depend on this or that form of property (private ownership or nationalization), but on whether the society is in the hands of the associated producers--the working class.

In fact, the aim of workers’ power is to implement a series of economic and social transformations that does away with all class distinctions and creates a society whereby the state--an instrument of class domination--gradually fades away.

As Engels wrote, "The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property."

The economy, now under workers’ control, socializes the means of production so that production and distribution can be carried out according to a rational plan that meets human need. "In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes," Engels continues, "the political authority of the state dies out."

Dem Bruce Lee: All your arguments are just measly allegations, insults and cheap small talk, without a sip of justified evidence. There are no laws on what any movement can do to overthrow a system. If we can use 9-11 in order to overthrow capitalism, all you gotta do is to unite with the 9-11, socialists, communists etc. instead of being so individualist and neurotic. Being middle class is not evil, nor is being white, our task is to destroy capitalism and to replace it with socialism (the next stage in the human evolution process) you have to welcome the reality that the world is heading toward socialism indeed

a thread open only to registered posters.

This is another significant thing we differ on with the progressives and the anti-wars: We attract legions of shills.

That anonymous poster has been banned and his comments have been removed.  Please let me know if any more trolls show up...

For anyone unfamiliar with Noam Chomsky’s stated opinion on 9/11 here’s video of him voicing it;

PART 1

PART2

Ok, I've just transcribed a section from Barry Zwicker’s stunning book “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11” which I strongly recommend you go out and kop Godfather. Find the Amazon link below;

On Amazon  

(Chapter 5, p 179) 

The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left

“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories ….”
-President George Bush, Nov. 10, 2001,
to the United Nations General Assembly

“Look, this is just conspiracy theory.”
- Noam Chomsky to author in conversation,
November 14th, 2002

“There is a principle which is a bar against sll information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”
- Herbert Spencer 

Thanks for the identical advice, George Bush and Noam Chomsky. But no thanks.
There’s something very strange here. You’d expect George Bush, the most visible face of the American Empire, to employ the intellectually-bankrupt put-down phrase “conspiracy theory” as an element of his propagandistic rhetoric in defence of the of the official story of 9/11. On the other hand, about the last person you’d expect use the same phase the same way for the same purpose would be Noam Chomsky, know for his masterful deconstructions of propaganda.

  You’d expect Noam Chomsky to be unmasking the nature of this phrase and the purpose of George Bush in using it. As we shall see, this phrase (and its friends “conspiracy nut,” “conspiracy whacko,” etc.) is far more than simply another misleading figure of speech. It’s a particularly effective tool for suppressing healthy skepticism about the contradictions and absurdities of 9/11 and further investigation into them. 

  Chomsky himself at one point issued a strong caution against the use of the term. Hehad just explained, at a public meeting, how mainstream meida stories are skewed to favour vested interests by means of reporters quoting establishment representatives at length while neglecting to quote critics of the establishment. “Would you characterize [your] media analysis as a “conspiracy theory” at all?” a woman asked Chomsky.
 “It’s precisely the opposite of conspiracy theory, actually,” Chomsky said. “… institutional factors … set boundaries for reporting and interpretation in ideological institutions.” He continued: “Any economist knows this: It’s not a conspiracy theory to point [out] that … it’s just taken for granted as an institutional fact. If someone were to say ‘Oh no, that’s a conspiracy theory,’ people would laugh.” He concluded: “For people to call [Chomsky’s media analysis] ‘conspiracy theory’ is part of the effort to prevent an understanding of how the world works, in my view – ‘conspiracy theory’ has become the intellectual equivalent of a four-letter word: it’s something people say when they don’t want you to think about what’s really going on.”  

So, when Noam Chomsky repeatedly uses the phrase “conspiracy theory” to describe questioning the official story of 9/11, he clearly knows its power and purpose of its use.

(Sidebar): Emotional Considerations Arising from a Study of Chomsky’s Work

Among readers of this book’s draft form, this chapter became the most controversial. These readers include writer friends, other friends, and colleagues. No one was close to neutral. This chapter – and I – encountered strong praise and strong aversion, hearty congratulations and dire warnings, gratitude, anger and suspicion.

 I came to realize how deep for others – and for me – are the feelings associated with this chapter. That caused me to try to separate out the emotional issues. This attempt has helped me more clearly about Noam Chomsky and the Left Gatekeepers. I hope this sidebar likewise will be useful to you, the reader.

 The emotional attitude toward Chomsky on the Right for the most part is simple hatred. A hatchet job on Chomsky in the Saturday observer section of the Ottawa Citizen of November 5, 2005, provides an example. “The Fantastic Professor: As smart as Noam Chomsky is, he can be infuriatingly stupid” titled “Blind genius.” The hatchet is wielded by the paper’s editorial page editor, Leonard Stern. Chomsky’s political views are “crude”. Chomsky is a “weird one” who “buys into ideas that would embarrass the flat earth society.”

 One the Left, the feelings are more complicated. The main emotions are gratitude and admiration – sometimes to the extent of near idol worship. As Daniel Abrahamson puts it: “Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous US foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations. He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions [of] leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.”

 I myself was one of his earliest supporters, from the days when most had not heard of him. My admiration knew no bounds. I have a stack of his books more then a foot high. I praised him personally and publicly and in my university teaching. I was honoured to interview him for four segments on Vision TV. A friend of mine and I at one time competed to see who could get the lager number of letters to the editor published defending Chomsky against the ill-wishers who twisted his words or called him names such as “anti-American.” I assisted in a small way with the film Manufacturing Consent.

 But I became one of those in the Left puzzled, even mystified, as a result of Chomsky’s insistence for more then 40 years the Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK. This puzzling anomaly took on a new significance after 9/11 with Chomsky’s opposition to questioning the official 9/11 story – which questioning he says is a huge mistake for the Left.

 As I studied his work ever more closely under the intense illumination of 9/11, I became increasingly amazed at patterns, dealt with in this chapter, that emerged from his body of work. Disbelief turned to shock. I feel I have been duped. I feel embarrassment that mainly I duped myself, that I had been in denial. With these realizations came anger from feeling betrayed by someone I welcomed into my innermost sanctum of trust.

 One of my emotional tasks is not to go overboard, like the jilted lover who seeks revenge. Trying to be reasonable, I attempted to reconcile these new strong negative emotions with the positive emotion of gratitude that I felt for so long, and that it would seem reasonable that I should continue to feel. Gratitude for all that I did learn from Chomsky, for all the support he has given to causes I support. I still wrestle with these conflicting emotions as I chance across the latest brilliant articulation by Chomsky of the havoc wreaked by the American Empire. For instance, his comments in an article by Jim Mcllroy and Coral Wynter:

Caracas – By sending gas for heating to poor, homeless people for free and at very low prices for those who can pay, “Venezuela is giving a great example of cooperation and solidarity with the people of the United States. And this is being seen by the entire world,” Noam Chomsky, well-known US intellectual, told a public meeting of teachers, students, researchers and journalists on February 13 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, according to a special report in the February 15 Caracas newspaper Diario Vea.
 Chomsky also said that majority of North Americans “receive little or no information of the great achievements of the Bolivian Revolution, that is headed by President Hugo Chavez, because the mass media only emphasise the bad, and are silent about the positive.”

 But now, even while reading a report such as this, I cannot forget the evidence of his being a major leader of the “controlled opposition” to the American Empire. My feelings of gratitude are hugely diminished and can never rise again.

 I decided to disclose my anger and mixed feelings here, but I have reined them in as much as possible in this chapter. My hope is to channel most of my anger into increased research and into understanding better the complexities of the subject matter. I have also been helped by a friend who is a leader in the “Forgiveness First” movement.

 You, too, may encounter strong feeling as you read this chapter. I am grateful for the debate that raged among my friends and colleagues, not least for the emotions directed at me. They have made me reconsider, have rekindled my sensitivity for the feelings of others, and have helped me rewrite usefully, I hope. I also hope you have friends as thoughtful and honest as mine with whom to discuss the intellectual, political and emotional aspects of Chomsky and his work. I must say I now find it creepy.