I have asked conservatives and liberals, believers and atheists, economists and scientists, men and women what vision they can all rally around. Specifically, I've asked them "what vision is so much better than the status quo that it can motivate everyone to open to 9/11 truth?".
Both my progressive and conservative friends agreed on:
Re-establishing adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law by all branches of government
Re-establishing the integrity of our electoral system
Stopping new wars and false flag attacks
I, of course, agree with these goals. But I don't think they go far enough in inspiring people. I also think we urgently need to start a non-partisan dialogue to determine what we really want as a people.
Let's Try Democracy
I had an economics professor whose solution to environmental issues was brilliant. He argued that if someone wanted to build a new factory in a town, then everyone in the town and surrounding area should be polled.
People would be told very directly the number of new jobs which would be created by the factory, the effect on the local economy, the likely number of additional deaths per year from cancer, and the costs to clean up the water supply once it was polluted.
Then the people would vote, and make their decision.
That struck me as a very refreshing way to implement democracy on a direct level.
Similarly, we should engage in a very honest dialog. Let's get beyond this false left-right, democrat-republican, liberal-conservative dichotomy. Those terms, as they are used today, are completely meaningless.
Let's talk about what we want for America, and what we are willing to do to get that. What shared values can we agree upon? What shared vision can inspire us -- all of us?
And let's openly discuss what we are willing to do to reach that vision. Are we willing to commit false flag terrorism? To cook the intelligence? To torture innocent farmers who were at the wrong place at the wrong time (some of those tortured at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were innocent farmers caught up in sweeps or "sold" by others for a fee)? Are we willing to launch nuclear weapons which -- despite the propaganda -- will kill and injure alot of people?
Its time to openly and honestly debate these issues, and then decide for ourselves. With the power of the Internet, we could easily start such a discussion and keep track of what people want. The web is perfectly suited to hold a national "town hall meeting" to decide the direction we wish to take.
If we don't do this, America will be destroyed by people making decisions for us. Such people may think they are doing what's in our best interests. Or they may be horrible, greedy or even insane people. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that we are letting them do the deciding.
Unless we learn to act like people living in a democracy, and take responsibility for our country's decisions, then the people who are running things in our absence (in the vacuum created by our failure to participate) will destroy it.
Therefore, I would argue that figuring out what we truly want as a people is a key to moving forward. The 9/11 truth movement has been very good at the "stick" side of the equation. But we have to help people get in touch with and discuss their highest values.
Once we determine where we as a people really want to go, people will be willing to let go of the status quo of false flags, "cooked" intelligence, and treating the Constitution like a worthless piece of paper.
George WashingtonGeorge Washington is a pen name. I am using the pen name, with the approval of the publisher, because I have received death threats due to my 9/11 research and writing. I am using a pen name to protect myself and my family.
Is a false town meeting similar to a false flag operation?
What you propose in the article far exceeds any mandate of having yet another investigation into the events of 9/11. In fact, it borders on proposing a coup – of sorts – that's draped in the ideals of democracy. The sense is that the change is needed REGARDLESS of the outcome of any new investigation because you've already concluded that 9/11 was a false flag operation and repeat that assertion – frequently (in the article and elsewhere).
So, what do you truly stand for GW? Is it (1) an "honest, open, and wholly transparent" investigation into the events of 9/11 to be determined by those reviewers acceptable to all interested parties – less the terrorists, or (2) an "open and honest dialogue" to motivate the unmotivated to act – preferably in agreement with your version of "justice" but act nonetheless - regarding 9/11 with the starting point being the presumption that it WAS a false flag operation that could only result in a re-writing of the Constitution to accommodate the implementation of a "true" democracy?
I think it the latter because you've already convinced yourself that 9/11 was a sham:
"...[L]et's openly discuss what we are willing to do to reach that vision. Are we willing to commit false flag terrorism? To cook the intelligence? To torture innocent farmers who were at the wrong place at the wrong time (some of those tortured at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq were innocent farmers caught up in sweeps or "sold" by others for a fee)? Are we willing to launch nuclear weapons which -- despite the propaganda -- will kill and injure a lot [sic] of people?"
Your mission now spread that vision that you speak of and ensure that "justice" is served here. Personally, I prefer to regard those accused by you and other 911Truthers as innocent until proven guilty – even if it's you, GW, that's holding the kangaroo court innocently labeled a "town meeting".
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 1:57:33 PM
If you are not convinced that 911 was an inside job, then you have not really done your homework, cognitive dissonance is not allowing you to see the horrifying truth, or you are actively or passively resisting any curiosity to inspect the massive amount of evidence available for inspection in the public domain. Please refer to www.911truth.org and related links. I am saddended by willful ignorance and subversive misdirection. It is intellectually dishonest to claim innocence for this Administration when they are constantly being caught in monstrous lies nearly every day. I wish I could believe it were some kind of incompetence, but many purposeful deceits show that the administration has a lot at stake and much to hide. You may not consider the controlled demolitions of the three WTC towers as proof positive that the Administration had something to do with setting up the false flag terror attacks of 911, but they sure have lots to hide about the events, and that is tantamount to guilt by association at the very least.
Mr. Murphy attempts to distract from what is proposed as a town hall meeting for those who already know that we need a return to lofty goals, higher ground, and virtuous pursuits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We must aspire to a free and open society where people may speak their mind without fear of retribution. Our tax money is not justs paying for roads, bridges, national defense and proper enforcement of regulatory standards, but it instead goes to line the pockets of contractors hell-bent on enslaving the American public as beasts of burden, taxed to pay for bridges to nowhere, munitions and bomblets that kill innocents, junkets to play golf in the tropics, and billions of dollars of mainstream media buyoffs that shut off the truth from hitting the airwaves. We must have choices, freedom in all its various forms, and the ability to band together for the common good.
What is the carrot that motivates us? Many of us are wide awake waiting for that final straw, that critical mass, that triggering threshold that finally makes everyone so mad as hell we really can't take it anymore. The town hall can channel our energy constructively so that the plans are in place for that chaotic moment when the cascade of honesty overwhelms and washes away the layers of bullshit that have been slathered so thick that it makes most of us wretch or sneer every time we hear Bush chuckle at his own crafty double-speak.
Like 'George Washington' I believe we must return to the Constitutional rule of law. We must respect and tolerate differences and let the truly informed majority back into the halls of power. We must aspire to uphold the highest goals of humanity and stay true to the Rights fought for and won by our founding fathers. Somehow we must end the rule of money over good ideas. The best ideas must be nurtured, not squashed by corporate tyrrany. People and living things must take precedence over immortal conglomerations of amoral corporate profit monsters. The influence of money in our government must be subordinated to honest discussion and debate over the best ideas and highest ideals.
Sooo much must be done, but it is quite correct that left and right and center and outlying eccentrics must all band together to have an honest discussion about what are the loftiest, highest goals to which we humans may aspire.
Mr. Murphy, I wish for you a change of heart, so that you can honestly see the monstrosity of fascist lies and oppression that will engulf us all if you and a critical number of people like you fail to realize how dark our future may be if the treasonous lies are not directly confronted. 911 was an inside job. You may not like the horrifying implications that our country was hijacked by a bloody neo-con coup, but the evidence all points to that with the highest probability. Please spend the time to research the matter again. I wish for you to understand how deeply Americans have been betrayed and deceived by our so-called leaders. That is the stick. I pray that we are not hit with it again.
by
Tim Riley (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 130 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 3:23:15 AM
I appreciate your honesty, candor, and concern, Mr. Riley. However, I have researched the events (at length) surrounding 9/11 and have found that a reasonable, more likely theory exists within the 9/11 Commission Report. I have done my homework - and even the extra credit.
That's not to say that additional work is not needed to further refine the report's assertions - for it is. But it must be conducted in a non-partisan manner. I think, though, that such a manner would be extremely difficult given the religious-like convictions that grip most 911Truthers.
While I don't think the future anywhere near as dark as you portray it to be, Mr. Riley, I DO appreciate the concern. Continue to "Embrace the suck!"
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 1719 comments)
on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 10:49:29 PM
he is talking about undoing the one that has occurred. I would like to participate in such a town hall. Though I barely have the time to work on the project, I do have a domain name "UndotheCoup" that could be used to establish a discussion forum. Please let me know if you'd like to use it for this project.
This is an excellent post, George....per usual. Thank you,
Ginny Ross, Oregon Truth Alliance
by
Ginny Ross (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 3:31:32 PM
a new investigation is needed to prove exactly who knew and did what when, not that the official story is a fraud.
Carrots; honest elections; representatives elected for their integrity and ideas, not due to their political and fund-raising connections (campaign finance reform); alternative/clean energy investing, not corporate welfare for the oil industry;
People who work in or visit slaugherhouses often can't stomach eating that kind of meat; likewise, if Americans were daily faced with the consequences of a cheap, materialistic lifestyle- say, videos on the news of the work of death squads run by Republocrat supported dictators, then more will reject the Republocrats at the next election, and will boycott corporations/products/services that contribute to death/injury/suffering in the 3rd world.
American Revolution only had about 45% popular support, but the loyalists were down to 15-20%, leaving about 35-40% who did not have an opinion or want to get involved, or supported something else
I've heard of only a few "truthers" suggest that armed insurrection or a military coup would be preferable to a full criminal investigation or Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and these are widely considered kooks or COINTELPRO; the concern of most is restoring Constitutional government, which has been undermined by the Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, NSPD 51, the 2007 Warner Defense appropriations bill that undid Posse Comitatus, etc.
The Complete 9/11 Timeline (over 5000 articles, exclusively from mainstream sources)
My response is subject to topic drift, because I'd like to answer three things above: the article, and the first two responses.
Tom Murphy's response has some good points (gems?) sandwiched with malarkey. He is conflating "x and y and z" which should be separate discussions on their own merits. But he is correctly calling GW out in that, despite the 9/11 truth movement's near-metaphysical-certitude about wrongdoing, no formal proceeding has borne out the charges, leaving it plausible to posit that the USG should enjoy a "presumption of innocence" until proven guilty. That's clever because it cites an American principle that all ought to salute and agree with.
Let me state where I am coming from. I am sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement. A new investigation is indeed demanded, indicated, and called for. Even without 9/11 as a crime, I am sympathetic to the Impeachment movement. Under the hood, I strongly suspect that 9/11 *IS* another crime that could be added into impeachment charges -- if we got to the bottom of matters -- and as Tom Murphy points out, we have not gotten to the bottom of matters. Impeachment can happen sooner rather than later; and very likely, if / when we get to the bottom of 9/11, it will be later rather than sooner. Also in the department of "where I am coming from," I am a fan of Dennis Kucinich the presidential candidate.
GW, are you a Kucinich man? To your article -- a generalized question of "What is a good carrot? What does America want?" -- the best answer is "freedom, peace, and prosperity." That is the slogan of Ron Paul, and this past weekend, he raised 46X more money than Dennis Kucinich in scheduled "money bomb" events. With his slogan of "freedom, peace, and prosperity," Ron Paul is doing 46 times better than my man, Kucinich. If Kucinich has a pithy three point slogan, I am unaware of it. Let's face it, Paul's is a great slogan, and people on the Kucinich side of the fence could be kicking themselves, to wit-- "Damn! I wish we'd adopted that slogan!"
Most directly in answer to GW, I think Paul has put his finger on it. "Freedom, peace, and prosperity" is resonating. I think it well encapsulates what America wants. Freedom includes restoring respect for civil liberties and the Constitution, hence also the rule of law. Peace means just that, and entails turning away from war. Prosperity is what would likely result, if America just fixed the first two matters. I hope that Paul would allow that "a level playing field" in the economy is within the fold, falling under the rubric of "prosperity."
I highly suspect that if GW conducted focus groups or the town meeting that he writes of, he could have no better outcome than to settle on "freedom, peace, and prosperity." Even while it's just three words, it's a mouthful, and in recent times, America has been on the decline on all three fronts. Those really are the three major things that America needs to turn around.
So. It's very hard to out-clever a clever presidential candidate. And if indeed you want to lead change, then the best way to do that is to be a presidential candidate and to *build* the mandate for the change that's of interest to you. Ron Paul may be on the road to building such a mandate, even though I wish I could say that Kucinich was doing better. He isn't.
Still and all. I would not pan the proposal in this article above. Any American is allowed to advocate, to express good intentions or a wish for change. It seems that Murphy wrinkles his nose at the 9/11 truth movement, and then reads the balance of the article with that bias against the source. There's nothing wrong with a town meeting. To "propose a coup...draped in the ideals of democracy" is a straw man argument, because that's not what GW said. (And, even if he did, well -- the Ron Paul Revolution is being trumpeted. That is a use of the key word, revolution. Shouldn't Tom Murphy be likewise criticizing Ron Paul? Isn't his revolution-touting more literally what Murphy said, "propos[ing] a coup...draped in the ideals of democracy"?)
I think it was fair for GW to speak of BOTH a stick and a carrot. It should be fair to speak of both a problem and a solution. The most adverse outcome of a 9/11 investigation would be to confirm our worst fears -- that the crime of the century went down there. But, if that verdict is read out, does that mean that America has solved its problems and cleaned up its act? I believe that, as big as 9/11 was, that America has many, many more problems and pressing demands. What should follow after a guilty verdict is the attempt at change to ensure that "this kind of thing can never happen again." Many victims turn activist, to ensure that their victimization can never occur to another American family. That laudable impulse is natural, so perhaps let's not kick GW for his advocacy within his free speech rights.
GW, you also asked about securing online polls. One level of security is to require a logon. If users must create accounts, then it slows down unscrupulous "bomb" attempts. (And permits limiting participation to one vote per account.) Another level of security is to add a "captcha" which is where people must type in some words or random letters or numbers, to submit their vote. Ideally, use both forms of security and even put a captcha on the account-creation page as well as the poll itself.
by
John Kusumi (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 77 comments)
on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 4:00:17 PM
7 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
