9/11 and the Left: Is there any way forward?

[barracuda]

First of all, this isn't really a CD thread - the thread is called "911 and the Left", not "911, Back and to the Left". Secondly, the repercussions of 911 (which, like the Tonkin Gulf incident, was certainly an act of war), would probably have been identical even if the buildings had not fallen. Afghanistan, Iraq, Patriot Act - all of it was ready to go in any case. My "theory" is that the air defense stand down, FAA interference, and alphabet agency facilitation of the hijackers (etc.) is more than enough to signal treason without ever requiring the byzantine sidetracking theoretical reconstructions of the building collapses.

the challenge is preventing the enlightened from becoming discouraged by comments such as barracuda's "what are you gonna do about it?" and giving up hope for the truth.

My comment was not designed to discourage anyone. It is a challenge to move to the next phase instead of being mired in forensic minutia that adds nothing to your political response to the false flag. It is my contention that CD is one of the gatekeeping mechanisms at play here, a honeypot, and it has effectively kept people like you from taking meaningful political action against those factions in this country that continue to drive us toward this state of endless war.

[American Dream]

barracuda wrote:

It is a challenge to move to the next phase instead of being mired in forensic minutia that adds nothing to your political response to the false flag. It is my contention that CD is one of the gatekeeping mechanisms at play here, a honeypot, and it has effectively kept people like you from taking meaningful political action against those factions in this country that continue to drive us toward this state of endless war.

Thank you, barracuda.

I have to wonder at the judgement of people like Fetzer, Wall and others- if not their motivation.

Should CD be used as the wedge to further divide anti-conspiracist leftists from 9/11 Truth advocates?

What good could that possibly do???

[dbcooper41]

to me the way forward is to continue to seek the truth about 9/11, and other such events, and to continue to spread the word.
most of my friends are sick of my ranting, but 1 by 1 they have had to concede that i have convinced them the official tale is a myth.
it's a very unpleasant experience to accept that all you believed was a lie.
but once you accept that you can never go back to your comfortable ignorance.

i think one key to the future is reframing the debate to put the onus on the supporters of the official theory.
make them prove their myth.

[JackRiddler]

it's a very unpleasant experience to accept that all you believed was a lie.

What if you never believed the patriotic crap in the first place? Plenty of us never did, at least not in our lives as adults. On Sept. 11, my first expectation was that the attacks were the arranged casus belli event I had expected after the return of the Bush mob to power, with their obvious designs on wars in the Middle East. I spent a few months attacking my own assumptions and examining the evidence until I was satisfied that a) some form of that hypothesis was likely and b) more importantly, a cover-up was underway and this was unconscionable given how "9/11" was being used to redefine every aspect of reality from global geopolitics to everyday life.

The official story blaming "al-Qaeda" already put authorship at a half-remove from the CIA operations that in the first place created al-Qaeda (originally a term for the "database" of Arab mujahedeen veterans of the anti-Soviet Afghanistan jihad started and financed by the CIA in the 1980s).

but once you accept that you can never go back to your comfortable ignorance.

A lot of people find it easy to go back to their anxious inaction, when the alternative is to act like a Moonie selling a mix of disinformation on the street corner, to no worthy end.

i think one key to the future is reframing the debate to put the onus on the supporters of the official theory.
make them prove their myth.

If you did, you wouldn't be bothering with the demolitions hypothesis, which puts the onus on you. This was the original approach of what became known as the 9/11 truth movement: Demonstrate that the official theory cannot be true or complete. Put the pressure on the bogus investigations for their omissions, contradictions, conflicts of interest, lies and cover-ups. Call out the people who were visibly involved in crimes of negligence or facilitation: the AWOL air defense chain of command on the day from Bush on down, Alec Station, the operations that were actually tracking the alleged hijackers years in advance, the officials at FBI and in the military who suppressed investigations into the alleged hijackers. Demand explanations for all cases of foreknowledge.

Instead of keeping up the pressure on the cover-up and self-collapsing official story and demanding disclosure at a time when most people had doubts and the event was still fresh to them, "the movement" turned into an impossible and usually pathetic effort to prove and persuade people of its own hypotheses (in the main about demolitions, but also more obvious exotica like the Pentagon hole and no-planes theories). Actually, a self-help therapy group with no more historical or political consciousness than the mainstream culture and a happy promiscuity under the "big tent" with religious charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, "chemtrails" and UFOs, climate change denialists, NWO and "Illuminati," Jew-haters and Nazis.

[Jeff]

to me the way forward is to continue to seek the truth about 9/11, and other such events, and to continue to spread the word.

I don't believe it's possible to do both simultaneously, at least not in good conscience, or at least not by me. Spreading the word is evangelism, and that's what people do when their Truth is settled. When the narrative shifted from a press for truth to a we are truth change patriot action, I was done with it.

[dbcooper41]

dbcooper41 wrote:
to me the way forward is to continue to seek the truth about 9/11, and other such events, and to continue to spread the word.

perhaps i chose my words a little carelessly. please don't accuse me of being anti-semantic.
how about "learn all i can about how global power operates and share what i learn with others.
they can then independently assess what i perceive to be true and then decide for themselves, if they so choose, what they believe happened on 9/11/2001."

[Howling Rainbows]

to me the way forward is to continue to seek the truth about 9/11, and other such events, and to continue to spread the word.

I don't believe it's possible to do both simultaneously, at least not in good conscience, or at least not by me. Spreading the word is evangelism, and that's what people do when their Truth is settled. When the narrative shifted from a press for truth to a we are truth change patriot action, I was done with it.

I see your point. Much better to have Goldman Sachs run the world than the We Are Change folks. Those We Are Change people are much more dangerous.

[AlicetheKurious]

to me the way forward is to continue to seek the truth about 9/11, and other such events, and to continue to spread the word.

I don't believe it's possible to do both simultaneously, at least not in good conscience, or at least not by me. Spreading the word is evangelism, and that's what people do when their Truth is settled. When the narrative shifted from a press for truth to a we are truth change patriot action, I was done with it.

I see your point. Much better to have Goldman Sachs run the world than the We Are Change folks. Those We Are Change people are much more dangerous.

Yes, because history shows that the most effective popular movements are those that insist that nothing is really knowable, so avoid divisive concepts like "truth" vs "lies", and especially a tedious focus on "physical evidence" and common sense. Keep it metaphysical, baby! Passion is not only embarrassingly gauche, it's suspect -- far better to speak in terms that are inaccessible to all but an initiated few, and to refuse to even consider any information unless it meets acceptable standards of spelling, grammar and taste in background music. Above all, rigid adherence to a strict admissions policy must be maintained to keep the riffraff out, because an exclusive, homogeneous and elitist movement is a truly potent movement. Let's roll!

[thatsmystory]

I see your point. Much better to have Goldman Sachs run the world than the We Are Change folks. Those We Are Change people are much more dangerous.

Criticizing the 9/11 truth movement is tantamount to advocating for the status quo?

[JackRiddler]

to me the way forward is to continue to seek the truth about 9/11, and other such events, and to continue to spread the word.

I don't believe it's possible to do both simultaneously, at least not in good conscience, or at least not by me. Spreading the word is evangelism, and that's what people do when their Truth is settled. When the narrative shifted from a press for truth to a we are truth change patriot action, I was done with it.

I see your point. Much better to have Goldman Sachs run the world than the We Are Change folks. Those We Are Change people are much more dangerous.

HR, I want to be respectful because you've been nice enough to me. But is this statement supposed to be serious? Come on man, "are you with us or are you with the terrorists?"!

I was going to skewer it as an outrageous false dichotomy, but really it's a non sequitur. You might as well ask whether the world should be run by Goldman Sachs or benevolent extraterrestrials. It's more likely that dolphins will teach hippies how to cure bad vibes with sonar, take away everything and make everyone be high. Dangerous is what "those We Are Change People" wish they could ever be. They're a demobilization campaign that keeps "Goldman Sachs" or the powers that be more secure than without them. The most danger they've managed is to turn themselves into a small appendage of the Tea Party movement.

[JackRiddler]

I see your point. Much better to have Goldman Sachs run the world than the We Are Change folks. Those We Are Change people are much more dangerous.

Yes, because history shows that the most effective popular movements are those that insist that nothing is really knowable, so avoid divisive concepts like "truth" vs "lies", and especially a tedious focus on "physical evidence" and common sense. Keep it metaphysical, baby! Passion is not only embarrassingly gauche, it's suspect -- far better to speak in terms that are inaccessible to all but an initiated few, and to refuse to even consider any information unless it meets acceptable standards of spelling, grammar and taste in background music. Above all, rigid adherence to a strict admissions policy must be maintained to keep the riffraff out, because an exclusive, homogeneous and elitist movement is a truly potent movement. Let's roll!

Which is which? I mean, which is "the movement" that insists nothing is really knowable? What is it that you know, if your idea of knowledge is to make up "evidence" and twist information to fit your dogmatic conclusions? And what if these prior conclusions were not even selected by a standard of plausibility, but by the rule of "Keep It Simple, Stupid"? By your light, the right way is to speak - scream actually - in terms unworthy of a fifth-grader. Insist on provably flat-out incorrect statements as revealed "truth," and accuse anyone who doesn't assent and applaud of supporting the bad guys. Fact check?! That's so gay! Never back down! From "history" we know that successful popular movements are those that alienate and hound intellectuals, conflate macho posturing with courage, and make their videos by setting randomly chosen traumatic scenes of carnage to a cool soundtrack. If they can manage to recruit a demographic that's 90 percent male, inarticulate, and under 30, they're on their way. Because words never changed a thing.

[AlicetheKurious]

By your light, the right way is to speak - scream actually - in terms unworthy of a fifth-grader. Insist on provably flat-out incorrect statements as revealed "truth," and accuse anyone who doesn't assent and applaud of supporting the bad guys. Fact check?! That's so gay!

That little tantrum would be so much less embarrassing for you, if you had ever once, just once, pointed out a "provably flat-out incorrect statement" I've made. Maybe I've blocked it out: have you?

As for screaming, I admit I have a temper, but even in extremis I rarely use "terms unworthy of a fifth-grader". Indeed, you yourself once pointed out my excellent command of "the language", did you not?

Fact check?! That's so gay!

Wow, that sounds just like something I'd say. Uncanny.

[American Dream]

Alice, Jack was making some very important points about your usage of strawmen, and about questionable arguments used to support 9/11 "Truth".

Your response was not so much a response to his points as a distraction from them.

[Jeff]

Seriously, 9/11 Truth and me man, we’re fucking done professionally.

[norton ash]

Jeff, wait, nooo!!! Who's going to be our Dark Knight?