Putting 9/11 Truth in broad political context, from a conservative Republican's perspective

The 9/11 Truth Movement is a novel creature. Born by inevitable reactive consequence from back-room treason, which was itself nurtured by our own longstanding political complacency, which again in turn masked an underlying sense of helplessness, which yet again in turn was, I believe, scientifically inculcated within us over decades by practitioners of Bernays' cynical manipulativeness (and which can be traced back still further, by the serious historian), it is at once both a grim and desperate challenge as well as a unique opportunity to radically alter our country's destiny. More about that later. For now, let's look at where we've gotten so far.

The story of the 9/11 Truth Movement thus far (March 2007, as I write this) is largely, though not entirely, a story taking place on the left side of the political divide. So let's look there first.

The left has hated the Bush administration, and all adjuncts/tentacles thereof, from the get-go -- actually from before the get-go; the terminus of the 2000 election created a festering sore which virtually assured interpartisan bitterness for at least the next 4 years. But a funny thing happened on the way to that feud: 9/11/01. Suddenly, a vast swath of the left stood "united" with the president, at least in demonstrating a unity of resolve that the perpetrators of the terror must be dealt with. Initially, nearly everyone accepted what we were told by all "prestigious" sources: that Osama had his crazed radical Muslim henchmen do it, in a giant suicide/homicide plot, and that the government had nothing to do with it at all. Well, actually nobody said that out loud (that I recall); it was simply implied by the words and deeds of the government and the media.

Or was it?

An increasing number of people, Americans and foreigners, are looking askance at the words and actions of the administration and the media and becoming increasingly skeptical of this implicit innocence. A few of the questions: Why are the borders not closed? Why does the FBI not list 9/11 on Osama's rap sheet? Why do many of the victims' families continue to insist that most of their questions have never been answered? How did the 3 World Trade Center towers which fell down on 9/11 come down so rapidly, with such enormous pyroclastic dust clouds? Who told CNN and the BBC that WTC 7 had fallen, including an explanation of why, while it was still standing? The long list goes on and continues to grow.

Out of this has sprung a growing movement of angry activists, clamoring for a real investigation which will tackle the ugly possibility of an inside job. As one might expect, given the existing political climate and the fact that the administration is a (titularly) Republican one, most of those in this movement are to the left of center; notice, for example, that the ponytails are mostly on the men. Calls to action frequently implore "progressives" to join the cause, while seldom reaching out to those on the right. It's this facet of the movement to which I want to call your attention.

So, enough review: what's the big deal? Simple, really; it boils down to this: 9/11 was not an attack on the left, or the right, or any other subset of America. It was an attack on all of America. This is, or at least should be, self-evident, I think, but I also think that it needs to be stressed. The 9/11 Truth Movement is not a leftist cause, it's an American cause -- and even beyond that, it's a human cause, with quite literally global life-and-death consequences. So to those of you on the left, I say this: you are to be commended for being "the first ones on the bus"... but remember the rest of us are coming aboard too. Make room for us. Welcome us. Reach out and give us a hand getting on.

If that rubs you the wrong way, and I wouldn't blame you if it did, look at it this way. Remember the story of William Rodriguez, how he was trapped under a fire truck on 9/11 after one of the falling towers buried it. At that moment, he was a victim of the terror attack. Thankfully, people had seen him dive under the truck, and he was dug out, unhurt, whereupon he nobly became a rescuer of other victims. In a similar spirit, most of us have stories of initially being victims, albeit intangibly, of the official conspiracy theory propaganda, but once we woke up, we became interested and energized to awaken others. The victims became, and continue to become, the saviors.

Question: had you been at the WTC on 9/11, would you have tried to rescue only people like yourself? The question is patently offensive and immediately answers itself. Of course we all would rescue anyone we could. In a similar sense, it is now time to rescue all of America (and secondarily the rest of the world, though I think that will follow inevitably) from the terror nightmare, by waking them up from the "public myth" of the 9/11 OCT.

I don't think that's a particularly controversial assertion (within the movement, that is!), but I have some tactical advice which may help. Some of you "get this" already, but clearly there are some who don't yet; if you do, bear with me. I think you may find this a helpful review/clarification/expansion anyway.

What if 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch? What if it had been 9/11/96 instead of 9/11/01? Imagine a stereotypical "right-winger" emerged from his Confederate flag-adorned pickup, approached you, Bible under one arm, NRA cap donned, pro-life pamphlets sticking out of his back pocket, and said "9/11/96 was an inside job! That lying SOB Clinton and his liberal Democrat buddies killed 3000 of us! We gotta stop these Luciferian left-wingers before they kill us all!!!" How much of your time would you lend this man, and how soberly would you consider whatever evidence he presented to you to support his claims?

Weeeelllllll....... yeah, I think maybe now my point is getting clearer, eh?

That Bible under his arm contains a pertinent concept: the Christian is instructed to not "add your offense to the offense of the Gospel" (and boy are we ever swimming in examples today of why that's a bad evangelistic technique!). The adaptable principle for our purposes is this: the thought of a 9/11 inside job is a huge enough "bitter pill" to swallow, for the average conservative, without burdening him with additional simultaneous paradigm challenges. Imagine the horror you would feel had you voted for someone and then found out they had a hand in this! Even a whiff of such a suggestion is enough to drive many into zealous, denial-fueled smear campaigns against the movement. Now, imagine that idea being delivered wrapped in a package of political ideology which you have spent many years vigorously opposing. What would your reaction be?

The reason I'm addressing this to all of you is that, as the rescuers, you are in a position to choose your approach. Those who are still victims are like Rodriguez, pinned under the fire truck. They really have little choice -- at least, that's how it seems to them; in reality their prison is only in their own mind, but the despair induced by a mental prison should not be underestimated. So, I'm encouraging you to think about them like the rescuers thought of Rodriguez: they are now in need of saving, and once they are rescued, they can become co-rescuers. In the process of rescuing them, some will lash out; they are afraid! The process of awakening to this reality is painful!

Never forget that. By showing sympathy to their difficulty, and by allowing them "space" to come aboard without feeling pressured to also change all their political "stripes", you can ease the process. One method of doing that is to make them feel like there is a place for them in this movement. If you decry "right wingers" and talk about leftist political causes as though they are part and parcel of 9/11 Truth, they are not going to feel welcomed, and many will dig their heels in further in their resistance to the cause -- and that will be incredibly sad. It will be sad not just for them, but for all of us, because, again, this was an attack on all of America, with consequences for millions around the world, and thus our challenge is to mount a unified counterstrike to deal promptly and effectively with our domestic enemies. In that spirit, on occasion I bite my tongue when certain political subjects arise here; I do have something to say but saying it within the 9/11 movement would induce division over an issue which is not central to the movement itself. We can't afford that. Yes, we are winning, gradually, maybe even increasingly rapidly, but we don't know how much time we have. Let's make our efforts count. There will be time for less-urgent -- and more divisive -- political debate afterward.

I'll leave you for now with this: regardless of what they, or anyone, may claim, those who perpetrated 9/11 were no conservatives, any more than the violent paid agitators in Seattle represented the legitimate WTO protesters there (yes, some of us conservatives know about that). Have patience, and tolerance, for all Americans of every political stripe, here. We all belong in this movement, it's just that some of us don't know that yet.

I have much more to say about this but I'm out of writing time for now. In the future I want to talk about the potential for 9/11 Truth to lead to a truly revolutionary turning point in our history; of course that isn't any new concept per se, but perhaps my take on it may prove useful. In the meantime, I solicit your feedback on the above. (If I get motivated I may sprinkle hyperlinks, but that's a whole 'nother project in itself.)

Willie Rodriguez was a rescuer before he was rescued...

Sorry, it's a nice metaphor but you kind of have it backwards!

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Bite me!

"Have patience, and tolerance, for all Americans of every political stripe, here. We all belong in this movement, it's just that some of us don't know that yet."

I understand what you are trying to do, but let's keep it real... anyone who does not know the truth about 9/11 by now simply chooses to remain ignorant! Be they republican or democrat, I have no patience much less tolerance for these unpatriotic simpletons!

It's been five and a half years! Ignorance of the truth (at this point) is NO excuse!!

Rather

they choose to NOT become informed. Perhaps a minor, but distinct difference.

I understand your frustration when dealing with the uninformed and/or obdurate. Not everyone has the patience to do public outreach, and many lack the communication (primarily listening) skills to do it well. These are simple facts of human nature.

As the true facts of 9/11have not been widely covered in the msm (e.g. WTC 7), the general public has to dig for them in order to overcome the pervasive public ignorance. It is the principle mission of the 9/11Truth movement to inform the public of the true facts and their implications and thus the need for new investigations.

Now, anyone who has been adequately informed, understands basic physics and continues to accept the government myth of 9/11 has no excuse for remaining willfully ignorant. Please direct your scorn (if you have any) at them, for they should know better.

Humans are inherently irrational beings, some more than others. We have to work within the parameters of basic human psychology in order to properly frame the information so that it will be understood as it relates to them. Careful use of language is key here. Sad, but true.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Pretty well said,

I see the interplay of cognitive dissoance and denial every day in therapy.

In my North Carolina middlin' size town, I have talked with many folks and your description is fairly apt. Most folks haven't much of a clue because of the effect of today's operation mockingbird and the neocon ownership of the media.

I think some who are so impatient and dismissive of your points should take a breath and reconsider. We have to deal with people are they are - with respect to psychological variables and with respect to the conditioning and Bernaysian psyops that have been perpetrated upon them for decades.

Deal with what is real. Work with what exists. Not what, in passion, you wish existed.

I wish I could stay and discuss more - because this topic is surely worthy of it. But work beckons....

Well Sam...

"How much of your time would you lend this man, and how soberly would you consider whatever evidence he presented to you to support his claims?"

I did vote for Clinton -- twice. Yet I'm open minded about the massacre at WACO, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City. That's me. I always look at the evidence.

Most people don't. Most "conservatives" in particular are hard headed and nearly impenetrable. I have in-laws who are quite fascistic, and won't listen to anything no matter how much evidence exists. These people have a world view that they are the superior ones, usually by virtue of having more money than most, and that makes them right about their greedy little arrogance and classist drivel.

As for the economically poor supporters of the Repubilcans, the party of billionaires, I can't muster much empathy for people who are clueless about their own interests.

I think most people have heard about problems with the 9-11 story by now, and they either have integrity and morality, and therefore are compelled to find out the truth -- or they don't. That's a matter of character, which is sorely lacking in this country in this age. I don't want to attribute morality or integrity to political movements, but the political movements have an uncanny way of erasing integrity and morality from the minds of men. That to me, is a huge problem, and one I'm not about to be quiet about.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

Re: Clinton, and the poor

John, your point about Clinton is interesting.

I now strongly suspect that the 9-11 horror show must have been in planning stages during the Clinton admin. Doesn't that seem likely, based on sheer complexity?

You also say, "As for the economically poor supporters of the Repubilcans, the party of billionaires, I can't muster much empathy for people who are clueless about their own interests."

Look how concerted and effective the 'divide and conquor' campaign has been. I get a little compassion from noticing that. The scape-goating methodolgy has been just masterful. Total control of all media helps. Hats off to the propagandists. It is a work of genius, even if an evil kind of genius.

half the problem

is lack of integrity and morality and half is lack of awareness. If you're not suffering from the latter, and you aren't working to spread the truth, then you probably have some character issues to resolve...

____

Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force

 

Funny, but my experience is the opposite...

...it is the true conservatives (those that truely want smaller government and only wars of defense), that seem to get 9/11 Truth far more readily than the Liberals I discuss this with.

Conservatives of a Libertarian-bent have a much more innate mistrust of government and can much more readily assimilate 9/11 Truth than Liberals who have always viewed government as an instrument for social good....I can't tell you how many people on the Left I run into that think Bush & Co. lie about everything except 9/11 (on that ONE example they're telling the truth...amazing and truly frustrating).

Both sides can easily be played by the minions and tactics of the High Perps, which keep both sides disinterested in pursuing the truth about 9/11. The incredibly over-hyped charges of anti-semitism turn off the casual left (who won't touch anything imbued with the taint of rascism with a10-foot pole). Conversely, appeals to conservatives' knee-jerk partiotism ("support the troops", you're either with us or with the terrorists", etc.) similarly brainwash those people.

I agree with you that we have to make conscious, disciplined efforts to stay focused here and always be alert to the danger of falling into the "divide and conquer" trap....for example, Peak Oil and Global Warming should be discussed on those forums, IMO. On the other hand, I believe our fraudulent monetary system, controlled corporate media, the growing Police State, and rigged elections are fair game here and dovetail nicely with 9/11.

Good post.

"...it is the true

"...it is the true conservatives (those that truely want smaller government and only wars of defense), that seem to get 9/11 Truth far more readily than the Liberals I discuss this with. "
my experience is exactly the opposite. the libertarians are surprisingly strong against even questioning the official story and i find in my experience that liberals are far more likely to question 9/11 than conservatives. for the record i consider myself a liberal/libertarian, so maybe the "conservative" circles i tried spreading 9/11 truth in were not the best choices.

Glad to hear that you have success informing liberals...

...I'm continuing to try and attend big organized (and with gatekeeping leadership) liberal, anti-war meetings and hand out DVDs....more and more grassroots liberals at these meetings are receptive and informed...I still have hope for even greater numbers...

I was referring to conservatives that don't identify themselves (without thinking) as Republican. But, the third of the population we'll never convince, IMO, is heavily populated by another group of people that picked their "team" (Republican) and will never question anything a member of the government with an "R" after their name does, no matter how much it violates traditional conservative values. It doesn't matter that Bush is a big spending, big deficit, big government Republican who starts optional wars of empire....they will still tell you he's "conservative", incredibly.

And, in my analysis, asking liberals to believe elements of their government committed mass murder of their fellow citizens is asking them to believe government is bad or evil...and liberals believe government is a solution (i.e. "good") for many of societal problems that can't be solved by unfettered capitalism alone.

Just my take.

im liberal and i have

im liberal and i have always thought that the government was basically "bad". i dont buy that shit that all liberals think government is a force for good and all conservatives think its bad(besides, its mostly "conservatives" who seem to be most willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt these days). i believe government can and should do more good for the average citizen, thats the liberal in me, but i also believe the government is so hopelessly corrupted that i just want them out of our lives. thats the libertarian in me i guess. to me, liberals are less likely to take things at face value and more likely to dig deeper into issues than conservatives are, which is why i percieve liberals to be more open to 9/11 truth. you are absolutely right that many "conservatives" are not conservatives at all but just simply hack republican partisans. Bush has wasted more money than any "liberal"(have we ever even had a TRULY liberal president?) president i can think of.

Turning point

Sam, I find myself most intrigued by what you write here.

You say, "remember the rest of us are coming aboard too. Make room for us. Welcome us. Reach out and give us a hand getting on." I guess that implies that so-called liberals are more likely to be intersted in (or able to look at) 911 truth. LIke others commenting, I wonder.

My own background is on the liberal side, but I have almost lost interest in it due to the 911 blindness there. I for one am more than eager to reach out however possible to people with other political viewpoints. Let's find ways to do that. This issue transcends any such division.

Isn't it a question of freedom versus tyranny? A question of people in charge, versus elites in charge? No one wants tyrrany except those in positions of power. We have almost lost our democracy as well as our freedom of the press, haven't we. The justice system may be collapsing too, it seems.

Your point about a "truly revolutionary turning point in our history..." coming up, or necessary now, looks important to me. I agree with that assessment.

I will be quite interested to read your next blog on that topic, if that is what you are planning.

good conversation!

This is to all, but you're the most forward-looking (and your post is last) so I'm adding it here.

The posts so far reflect some disagreement over both (a) the underlying reality of who is "ripe for the picking" and who isn't, as well as (b) ensuing opinions as to why that is. I've spent most of my energy thus far informing myself and posting anonymously on the web, and very little engaging people face to face. I think it's time to change that. We could discuss information value (or whatever the exact term is): the idea that people operate on the basis of their own subjective perception of the "value" -- to them -- of the information they see/receive. That field of study has a lot to say about my essay above. (See this for a start into that area.) The bottom line is twofold: first, it is imperative that we break through the media blackout to make people aware that there *is* a 9/11 Truth Movement; this is being done via the protests, John Conner (and many others) infiltrations of meetings, etc.; nobody needs me to tell them to do this, because y'all are doing it already. Second, though, and equally or very nearly equally important, it matters what sort of impression is given of the movement. A lot of focus has been given to the need to eschew the esoteric and not well-supported notions in favor of the more solid and well-documented matters, but little attention has been given (that I've seen) to the importance of creating an impression of an ideologically-neutral movement. That dearth was the impetus for my essay.

Lest I give the wrong impression myself, I don't mean that the impression of ideological neutrality is more important than the reality; it's actually more the other way round, but really they go hand in hand. The important thing is to make us all aware that we are going to be strange bedfellows here, and we need to be intentional about being OK with that. From that intentionality will automatically flow the right kind of behavior.

Now about Clinton... that was a simple comparison; Clinton, like Bush, has been the "American (political) Idol" and thus our thoughts about him are subject to the cult of personality effect. That skews things somewhat. And of course some of us are more independent thinkers, in partisan terms, than others. I remember Sam Smith's Progressive Review wherein he diligently documented volumes of Clinton-Gore crimes from a leftist perspective. But that was in the alternative media. I think that's not so much where the battle lines are now. The huge chunk of America which should be coming into our sights now is the uninformed masses who (still) don't get their news from the web, or at least they don't take the time to go searching for alternatives to their existing favorite sources. The DRG piece in Tikkun is a good example of this kind of "assault", but it needs to happen on the conservative side as well. I have some thoughts about strategy for doing that. My basic concern is that the movement needs to realize political ideology isn't something which changes immediately; we need to get 9/11 truth first and worry about arguing more broad political perspectives after that. Your comment:

My own background is on the liberal side, but I have almost lost interest in it due to the 911 blindness there. I for one am more than eager to reach out however possible to people with other political viewpoints. Let's find ways to do that. This issue transcends any such division.

Isn't it a question of freedom versus tyranny? A question of people in charge, versus elites in charge? No one wants tyrrany except those in positions of power. We have almost lost our democracy as well as our freedom of the press, haven't we. The justice system may be collapsing too, it seems.

...is on the mark. I've become disenchanted with the GOP and the bulk of conservatism and its many institutions, like you have on your side, and for the same reason: what good is a political (or social or other societal) movement/institution which fails to detect and react to a 9/11 inside job? At least that's my sentiment, and I think it reflects yours accurately. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As to exactly who is receptive and why, as bandied about by several responders to my essay, I suppose it's debatable. Perhaps my perspective is not entirely accurate on that front. I do know, though, that if 9/11 truth is presented as a leftist cause, just about nobody on the right is going to listen. They may eventually come around, but it will take a long time. "You don't get a second chance to make a first impression."

Thanks to all for their responses, and in advance to anyone else who adds their 2 cents' worth. More to come.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

9/11 Truth NonPartisanship

".....that if 9/11 truth is presented as a leftist cause, just about nobody on the right is going to listen."

The same is probably true if you reverse the polarity....

I was at a convenience store and handed out some Mysteries while waiting in line the other night....a youngish girl behind me immediately asked, a little suspiciously, upon hearing the topic of the film, "What's your ideology?" To which I replied, "American patriot". That seemed to satisfy her.

I agree that 9/11 Truth has to be consciously presented in left-right neutral political terms....The High Perps want to keep us looking side-to-side, instead of up-and-down....Thinking conservatives and thinking liberals realize that neither the two major parties represents their respective values.

I sometimes look at 9/11 as a reverse of The Bay of Pigs....a CIA operation planned under one party and implemented by the other one. More evidence we have a One-Party System, the party of the elites and corporations....

true

And here's a paragraph which serves to illustrate my beef:

During Atta's university years in Cairo, the engineering guild that he joined had made him a member of the group Muslim Brotherhood. 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is also a card-carrying "brother." The Muslim Brotherhood has been around since the 1920's, it was originally an anti-colonial group. Today, it's the most powerful terrorist force you've never heard of. Their frontmen in Egypt are nonviolent and run for office. But the real sordid history of the Muslim Brotherhood is that, since 1928, its anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist ideologies have turned it into the perfect partner in crime for Nazis, European fascists, American far-rightists and their contemporary counterparts, the neoconservatives.

(from Sander Hicks)

Well, let's think about this statement logically. If, as the left (and even many on the right) often stipulates, Nazism was an aberration of the right, and Hitler was thus a "far right" cancer, then... does it not follow that decent people would want to distance themselves from the right altogether? If

far right = Hitler

and

Hitler = the epitome of evil

then does it not follow that

decency = leftism?

Here's a not-so-secret secret: Hitler was not a conservative.

Sander's comment implies that there is something nascent in, shall we say, "not-so-far-right" conservatism which finds its natural culmination in Nazism. This is simply not true -- at least, all of my years as a conservative have left me without any perceptible basis for such a conclusion. The furthest in that direction which I could rationally go would be to stipulate that the conservative masses can sometimes be misled into supporting fascism. That much we can see, today as well as in 1930s Germany. But what is the genesis of such misleadership, and how does it succeed? I submit that the answers to those questions point us not to anything inherent in conservatism so much as to fundamental defects in human nature. The masses are susceptible to being misled, but that is not a feature of the right only. It's a danger for all masses of people. (Gustave Le Bon, anyone?)

By subtly suggesting that conservatism is merely a milder form of Nazism, Sander does exactly what I'm insisting must not be done in this movement. It may play well to the alternet crowd, but it will doom any effort to reach out to the "other half". Frankly, it's insulting, and it reinforces the left-right paradigm which has brought us to this disaster in the first place. I maintain that we need to start thinking above, not within, that division now.

I have the same message, BTW, for my friends on the right, who have been trained to believe simply that "liberalism is a mental disorder" and that anyone who talks about the environment is a Marxist retard. We have to stop that Pavlovial reaction, on both sides, and start putting our heads together more intelligently. Absolute syncretism isn't the answer; we do have substantive disagreements. However, we can do better than this, and it starts with learning how to actually talk and listen to each other instead of just bickering endlessly. We've been conditioned to be politically juvenile; now we need to grow (back) up.

Want to figure out 9/11? Ponder the 9/11 "Mineta Stone"

Actions

Hey, Prospector, you've sent in some good comments.

You say, about Hitler-bating and the like, by liberals toward conservatives, "Frankly, it's insulting, and it reinforces the left-right paradigm which has brought us to this disaster in the first place."

Good point. We have, basically, everything to lose. Divide and conquor is how they defeat us -- always was, always will be.

So let's get real chummy with each other, since otherwise those in charge will stay in charge and continue doing what they are doing. I just love the idea of us (former) liberals joining with you (former) conservatives. It should be unstoppable.

The item you set in bold says it all, for me: "what good is a political (or social or other societal) movement/institution which fails to detect and react to a 9/11 inside job?" If someone can't take that seriously, I find it difficult to take them seriously.

Yes, this conversation is good. We will of course also have to devise more and also more effective actions.