WTCDEMO Exclusive Scoop! The Nation to run hit piece linking 9/11 Truth Movement to Right Wing
OK so I decided to sit in Harvard Square for a while after work today with my truth now sign and some pamphlets. A kid, maybe 17 or 18, wearing a red Che shirt stops to chat.
He tells me he has a friend who is an intern for the Nation and that he is working on a piece that will "expose" the ties between the 9/11 Truth movement to the right wing. He mentioned specifically "that movie you have coming out", and playing dumb I said "what movie? we have lots..." Loose Change, he said.
Aha...
Well, I told him, I don't really think Loose Change is necessarily legit so it wouldn't surprise me, and proceeded to explain to him that there was a real truth movement and a fake one. And you're part of the real one he said. Yup.
He went on to explain that he was on the fence--obviously (from the shirt) he was very liberal and hated Bush, etc. BUT he said, he had reservations--why, he asked, if as I explained it was the neocons behind it, did they not include an Iraqi as part of the hijackers? We went on to argue this and similar points, very civilly and he only left when his freidns got tired of waiting for him.
While we were talking, one dunce had walked by asking me if I hadn't read Popular Mechanics in that way that some people do. The kid I was talking to was sympathetic, saying it must get tiresome to get that kind of "drive by" response instead of the guy stopping to have a real discussion. Yeah, I said, it does--thanks for being better than that.
So anyway, just a totally random validation of something I've been suspecting for a while as you all know. Let's see what the Nation ends up printing!
Hmmmm...
Is this just going to be about the Alex Jones connection, do you suppose? I don't anticipate that the movie itself is going to have "right wing" content -- do you?
When he was in town, I asked DRG to characterize his role in LCFC and he said he would be most accurately described as a "script consultant" in that he plays an advisory role but does not have final say. He said he approves of "95-98%" of the script's content, and that the "unapproved" portion is so for reasons of artistic disagreement. OTOH, he struck me (and some of my colleagues) as a little oblivious to some political issues that might very well piss off the left -- such as Christopher Bollyn's association with the American Free Press.
I dunno...
I thought maybe they were going to go with the Mark Cuban angle as far as LCFC, but maybe someone should tell them that as far as anyone can tell there is no longer a connection there. Thanks for sharing about DRG. I have no doubt that whatever he looked at was fine--most of Loose Change is fine--the problem is likely to be one of omission--I don't think they would leave in any errors accidentally on purpose THIS time around. You don't have to lie to totally mislead--you just pretend to know less than you do. You choose not to research certain leads, etc.
Whatever it turns out to be (and assuming it really happens like this kid says it will) I think it makes perfect sense in the manufactured narrative that 9/11 truth would be made into a "right wing" issue just in time for a democrat administration. Or even to make a republican administration seem moderate by comparison? I can't stop thinking about that pic of Luke Rudkowski with that gun toting waco-type guy that AJ is hyping. And both he and Jason Bermas working for AJ... wtf?
Now what's this about Bollyn and AFP? As far as I know he had a falling out with them in part because AFP is "in cahoots with the Zionists". So on the one hand there are people who accuse AFP of being what--right wing? And on the other you have Bollyn, himself accused of being an anti-semite, saying they are Zionist-controlled. again--WTF? It's this kind of needless drama that makes me suspect the whole kit and caboodle of being disinfo. All of the early truth movement seems suspect in my opinion, and I think there is some cause to suspect that of course the perps would beat everyone to the truth punch--who would have figured it out earlier than the perps' friends after all? And who better positioned to fuck it all up from the beginning by making the whole scene a minefield of disinfo and unsavory types? And then when the real movement starts to develop, who else would be so keen to be seen as "leaders" and so upset when they are called out as either disinfo or incompetent?
But hey, I need y'all to keep me honest and call me crazy if I start to become delusional as a result of my devil's advocacy!
As long as you can handle it
keep up maximum skepticism -- faith begets complacency.
On an entirely unrelated note, check this out! To elaborate: Germany's most popular newspaper -- "BILD", basically the Faux News of print -- is running a billboard campaign with the slogan: "Each truth requires someone brave to proclaim". The truths they themselves proclaim range from "Yes, my boobs are fake" to "Dad, I'm gay", being a tabloid and all, but -- needless to say -- it's an open invitation for proclaiming things a little more profound. Like, for example: "The Twin Towers were demolished."
Still looking for more which can be explained in one simple sentence. Suggestions?
_________________________________
happiness is either here or nowhere