911 and nonviolence

Submission to 911 blogger:

The issues I feel qualified to address tonight are primarily 2:

1) It is more valuable to show greater courage than it is to just put out more information. My website 911courage.org covers such things as nonviolent civil disobedience and leafleting federal agencies for whistleblowers.

2) Debunkers and especially 911 gatekeepers need to be treated with respect. I was radicalized by Noam Chomsky. My activism has been the best part of my life. I’ll never hate him. I just disagree with him on the 9/11 issue.

Below are initial pieces to consider

The Power Dynamic of Nonviolence

If you can persist in the face of repression,
you communicate to your adversary that what they’re
doing isn’t so much bad, which it probably is, as much
as it is ineffective. Then you begin to drive a wedge
between the liberals and conservatives in power. The
liberals moan and complain, ”They’re making us look so
bad, can’t we think of something to give them to get
them to go away?” The conservatives respond, “No, no,
no. If we’re a little more brutal, we can break them.”
Nevertheless, IF you can persist in the face of
repression, you push that wedge further and further
between the factions of power. Here’s the key: the
better the nonviolent discipline, the further the
wedge will go for any given level of effort and
sacrifice. The smoother the wedge, the further it
goes. The rougher the wedge, the slower it proceeds.

Dear Mr Rothschild,

I am a longtime progressive activist who admires your work and your publication. I am among the most sympathetic to progressive causes of 911truth activists. I was radicalized during the Vietnam war and am a nonviolence trainer. I did 4 months in jail for a 1982 civil disobedience on the nuclear power issue. You can review my efforts to introduce nonviolence to my fellow 911 skeptics at 911courage.org.

There are many respected leftists who hold a less hostile position on 911skepticism. Allow me to draw your attention to Howard Zinn's blurbs on D.R. Griffin's books. Also, before he passed on, William Sloane Coffin noted, ""Professor David Ray Griffin has a well-deserved reputation for the thoroughness of his research. All Americans who love their country enough to dig into the facts of these critical times will be well rewarded by examining his books. 9/11 truth is a very important issue---one with the power to bring lasting change to our country.”

I'm sure you are familiar with the work of Chip Berlet, who to my mind sets the gold standard for criticism of the 911truth movement. I obviously differ with Chip on many points, but even he agrees the Kean Commission Report was insufficient and a new investigation is needed. He also praises the work of James Ridgeway on the subject.

Because 911truthers are anti-imperialist, and because professional pollsters admit the movement has grown to significant numbers, I suggest you consider taking Berlet's position if you want to be a critic. While I don't consider that radicals like Chomsky (my professor at MIT) eschew the details of the 911 issue out of cowardice, I do feel powerful liberals are guilty of such cowardice. I do worry that as the 911 truth movement increases in stature, leftists like you and Noam will be accused of lacking integrity. Because there are so many other issues you and your publication address with integrity, please consider softening your resistance to asking the hard questions about 911. After all, I'm sure you are concerned about the attack on civil liberties that unquestioned acceptance of the "war on terror" fosters.

Everyday activists on all issues tend to have lower standards for what constitutes evidence that professional researchers. There is a role for people who want to hold our feet to the fire.

However, I suggest your acceptance of the defense of Silverstein's quote is below your standards. The full quote reads:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

It doesn't seem there would have been time for the firefighters to leave the building.

In struggle,

Dave Slesinger
Matthew Rothschild | Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already

Avoid Accusing People of Disinfo! by Dave Slesinger dslesinger@alum.mit.edu

Because the politicians who are most against us have more than their offices to lose, police
infiltration will be larger than if they had less to lose. Nevertheless, the primary danger of police
infiltration will never be the spread of lies or gathering of secrets. It will always be the spread of

Thanks David...

For stopping by, and your tireless efforts.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Any ideas of how I might

Any ideas of how I might engage our movement on the value of courage?


I've found that being "courageous" becomes easier over time. For instance, when I first started doing this, I thought "the man" was going to come knocking on my door. That never happened.

The value of being courageous... To me... being courageous means taking risks. What's that expression about the risks in life we never take are the possible something something something we miss out on?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Hi David

I'm a former civil disobeyer (primarily on nuclear weapons/Central American solidarity) and very interested in pursuing this topic. I don't have time to post right now but when I get the time I will, and I hope you will check back. You're certainly welcome to PM me, as well.

Please contact me directly

Please contact me directly 240-221-3293

or davidslesinger@yahoo.com