This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Powers-That-Be Are Secretly Terrified of the People’s Power … And Only PRETEND They’re Firmly In Control
Our Actions Are More Powerful Than We Realize
David Swanson writes:
Almost every [history of past activism] includes belated discoveries of the extent to which government officials were influenced by activist groups even while pretending to ignore popular pressure.
These revelations can be found in the memoirs of the government officials as well, such as in George W. Bush's recollection of how seriously the Republican Senate Majority Leader was taking public pressure against the war on Iraq in 2006.
Of course, activism that appears ineffectual at the time can succeed in a great many ways, including by influencing others, even young children, who go on to become effective activists -- or by influencing firm opponents who begin to change their minds and eventually switch sides.
The beautiful thing about nonviolent activism is that, while risking no harm, it has the potential to do good in ways small and large that ripple out from it in directions we cannot track or measure.
Wittner participated in his first political demonstration in 1961. The USSR was withdrawing from a moratorium on nuclear testing. A protest at the White House urged President Kennedy not to follow suit:
"Picking up what I considered a very clever sign ('Kennedy, Don't Mimic the Russians!'), I joined the others (supplemented by a second busload of students from a Quaker college in the Midwest) circling around a couple of trees outside the White House. Mike and I -- as new and zealous recruits -- circled all day without taking a lunch or a dinner break.
"For decades I looked back on this venture as a trifle ridiculous. After all, we and other small bands of protesters couldn't have had any impact on U.S. policy, could we? Then in the mid-1990s, while doing research at the Kennedy Library on the history of the world nuclear disarmament movement, I stumbled onto an oral history interview with Adrian Fisher, deputy director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. He was explaining why Kennedy delayed resuming atmospheric nuclear tests until April 1962. Kennedy personally wanted to resume such tests, Fisher recalled, 'but he also recognized that there were a lot of people that were going to be deeply offended by the United States resuming atmospheric testing. We had people picketing the White House, and there was a lot of excitement about it -- just because the Russians do it, why do we have to do it?'"
Yes, Kennedy delayed a horrible action. He didn't, at that time, block it permanently. But if the picketers in 1961 had had the slightest notion that Kennedy was being influenced by them, their numbers would have multiplied 10-fold, as would the delay have correspondingly lengthened.
Yes, our government was more responsive to public opinion in the 1960s than now, but part of the reason is that more people were active then. And another reason is that government officials are doing a better job now of hiding any responsiveness to public sentiment, which helps convince the public it has no impact, which reduces activism further. We also focus far too much on the most difficult individuals to move, such as presidents.
In 1973-1974, Wittner visited GI coffee houses in Japan including in Yokusaka, where the Midway aircraft carrier was in port. The Japanese were protesting the ship's carrying of nuclear weapons, which was illegal in Japan, and which the U.S. military, of course, lied about. But U.S. soldiers with whom Wittner and other activists had talked, brought them onto the ship and showed them the nukes. The following summer, when Wittner read in a newspaper that,
"a substantial number of American GIs had refused to board the Midway for a mission to South Korea, then swept by popular protest against the U.S.-backed dictatorship, it occurred to me that I might have played some small role in inspiring their mutiny."
Soldiers can still be reached much more easily than presidents, more easily in many cases in fact than the average citizen. War lies are harder to sell to the people who have been fighting the wars.
In the late 1990s, Wittner was researching the anti-nuclear movement of decades past. He interviewed Robert "Bud" McFarlane, President Ronald Reagan's former national security advisor:
"Other administration officials had claimed that they had barely noticed the nuclear freeze movement. But when I asked McFarlane about it, he lit up and began outlining a massive administration campaign to counter and discredit the freeze -- one that he had directed. . . . A month later, I interviewed Edwin Meese, a top White House staffer and U.S. attorney general during the Reagan administration. When I asked him about the administration's response to the freeze campaign, he followed the usual line by saying that there was little official notice taken of it. In response, I recounted what McFarlane had revealed. A sheepish grin now spread across this former government official's face, and I knew that I had caught him. 'If Bud says that,' he remarked tactfully, 'it must be true.'"
When someone tells you to stop imagining that you're having an impact, ask them to please redirect their energy into getting 10 friends to join you in doing what needs to be done. If it has no impact, you'll have gone down trying. If it has an impact, nobody will tell you for many years.
Mr. Swanson is right. I noted in 2009:
As MSNBC news correspondent Jonathan Capehart tells Dylan Ratigan, the main problem is that people aren’t making enough noise. Capehart says that the people not only have to “burn up the phone lines to Congress”, but also to hit the streets and protest in D.C.
Even though most politicians are totally corrupt, if many millions of Americans poured into the streets of D.C., a critical mass would be reached, and the politicians would start changing things in a hurry.
As [liberal] PhD economist Dean Baker points out:
The elites hate to acknowledge it, but when large numbers of ordinary people are moved to action, it changes the narrow political world where the elites call the shots. Inside accounts reveal the extent to which Johnson and Nixon’s conduct of the Vietnam War was constrained by the huge anti-war movement. It was the civil rights movement, not compelling arguments, that convinced members of Congress to end legal racial discrimination. More recently, the townhall meetings, dominated by people opposed to health care reform, have been a serious roadblock for those pushing reform….
A big turnout … can make a real difference.
Baker is right about Vietnam.
Specifically – according to Daniel Ellsberg and many others – Richard Nixon actually planned on dropping a nuclear bomb on Vietnam. Nixon also said he didn’t care what the American people thought. He said that — no matter what the public did or said — he was going to escalate the war in Vietnam.
However, a well-known biographer says that Nixon backed off when hundreds of thousands of people turned out in Washington, D.C. to protest an escalation of the war.
And Pulitzer prize winning reporter Chris Hedges pointed out recently:
I was in Leipzig on November 9, 1989 with leaders of East German opposition and they told me that - perhaps within a year – there would be free passes back and forth across the Berlin wall.
Within a few hours, the Berlin Wall, at least as far as an impediment to human traffic, did not exist.
Week after week, month after month, these clergy in Leipzig held these candlelit vigils. And it was slow at first … people forget. Just like the Egyptian revolution has been percolating for many many months, and even years.
And suddenly, it began to grow.
And Honecker – who had been in ruling East Germany since the time of the dinosaurs – sent down a paratroop division to Leipzig .. . and they won’t attack the demonstrators.
Part of the reason that our actions are more powerful than we think is that courage is contagious. So is the ability to think.
As we've previously noted:
[Studies show ] that even one dissenting voice can give people permission to think for themselves. Specifically:
Solomon Asch, with experiments originally carried out in the 1950s and well-replicated since, highlighted a phenomenon now known as “conformity”. In the classic experiment, a subject sees a puzzle like the one in the nearby diagram: Which of the lines A, B, and C is the same size as the line X? Take a moment to determine your own answer…The gotcha is that the subject is seated alongside a number of other people looking at the diagram – seemingly other subjects, actually confederates of the experimenter. The other “subjects” in the experiment, one after the other, say that line C seems to be the same size as X. The real subject is seated next-to-last. How many people, placed in this situation, would say “C” – giving an obviously incorrect answer that agrees with the unanimous answer of the other subjects? What do you think the percentage would be?
Three-quarters of the subjects in Asch’s experiment gave a “conforming” answer at least once. A third of the subjects conformed more than half the time.
Get it so far? People tend to defer to what the herd thinks.
But here’s the good news:
Adding a single dissenter – just one other person who gives the correct answer, or even an incorrect answer that’s different from the group’s incorrect answer – reduces conformity very sharply, down to 5-10%.
Why is this important? Well, it means that one person who publicly speaks the truth can sway a group of people away from group-think.
If a group of people is leaning towards believing the government’s version of events, a single person who speaks the truth can help snap the group out of its trance.
There is an important point here regarding the web, as well. The above-cited article states that:
When subjects can respond in a way that will not be seen by the group, conformity also drops.What does that mean? Well, on the web, many people post anonymously. The anonymity gives people permission to “respond in a way that will not be seen by the group”. But most Americans still don’t get their news from the web, or only go to mainstream corporate news sites.
Away from the keyboard, we are not very anonymous. So that is where the conformity dynamic — and the need for courageous dissent — is vital. It is doubly important that we apply the same hard-hitting truthtelling we do on the Internet in our face-to-face interactions; because it is there that dissent is urgently needed.
Bottom line: Each person‘s voice has the power to snap entire groups out of their coma of irrational group-think. So go forth and be a light of rationality and truth among the sleeping masses.
And a recent study shows that when only 10% of a population have strongly-held beliefs, their belief will often be adopted by the majority of the society.
True, governments worldwide are cracking down on liberty with the iron fist of repression.
But some argue that this is actually a sign that we are winning.
As Truthout’s Matt Renner writes:
Recently I sat down with two of the young adults who organized and led the Egyptian resistance movement that overthrew Hosni Mubarak. The media narrative said it took 18 days, when in fact, they had been organizing for over five years.
According to these young men, the moment they knew they had won was the day Mubarak’s government shut off the Internet and blocked cellphone communications. When people could no longer get updates about what was happening in Tahrir Square, they had to come out of their homes and see for themselves, tripling the size of the protests in one fell swoop.
The global plutocracy is terrified of dissent. In some places, the war on dissent is being fought with bullets. In others, the war on dissent targets social media and mobile communications, while repressing and deceiving communities of struggle. It’s already happening.
Indeed, the use of heavy-handed tactics – taking the velvet glove off of the iron fist – could backfire, as it will show the “emperor’s ruthlessness” for all to see.
The powers-that-be are terrified of political awakening and dissent. For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski – National Security Adviser to President Carter, creator of America’s strategy to lure Russia into Afghanistan, creator of America’s plans for Eurasia in general, and Obama’s former foreign affairs adviser - said:
For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. There are only a few pockets of humanity left in the remotest corners of the world that are not politically alert and engaged with the political turmoil and stirrings that are so widespread today around the world.
***
America needs to face squarely a centrally important new global reality: that the world’s population is experiencing a political awakening unprecedented in scope and intensity, with the result that the politics of populism are transforming the politics of power.
***
[T]he central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening. That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing.
It is no overstatement to assert that now in the 21st century the population of much of the developing world is politically stirring and in many places seething with unrest. It is a population acutely conscious of social injustice to an unprecedented degree, and often resentful of its perceived lack of political dignity.
***
These energies transcend sovereign borders and pose a challenge both to existing states as well as to the existing global hierarchy, on top of which America still perches.
***
The misdiagnosis [of foreign policy] pertains to a relatively vague, excessively abstract, highly emotional, semi-theological definition of the chief menace that we face today in the world, and the consequent slighting of what I view as the unprecedented global challenge arising out of the unique phenomenon of a truly massive global political awakening of mankind. We live in an age in which mankind writ large is becoming politically conscious and politically activated to an unprecedented degree, and it is this condition which is producing a great deal of international turmoil.
That turmoil is the product of the political awakening, the fact that today vast masses of the world are not politically neutered, as they have been throughout history. They have political consciousness.
***
The other major change in international affairs is that for the first time, in all of human history, mankind has been politically awakened. That is a total new reality – total new reality. It has not been so for most of human history until the last one hundred years. And in the course of the last one hundred years, the whole world has become politically awakened. And no matter where you go, politics is a matter of social engagement, and most people know what is generally going on –generally going on – in the world, and are consciously aware of global inequities, inequalities, lack of respect, exploitation. Mankind is now politically awakened and stirring.
And a reader notes:
We do not understand our own power. Look around you. Almost everything you see was not only made, but created by people like yourselves. Most of the horrors existing on earth were engendered by the elites, WITH OUR CO-OPERATION. Without our consent, most of the terrifying situations existing in our world will cease to exist. Resist. It certainly may be difficult initially, but it grows easier moment by moment.
Some historical quotes may be helpful in illustrating the importance of struggling to make things better ...
It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
- Robert F . Kennedy
We must never despair; our situation has been compromising before; and it changed for the better; so I trust it will again. If difficulties arise; we must put forth new exertion and proportion our efforts to the exigencies of the times.
- George Washington
We must remember that one determined person can make a significant difference, and that a small group of determined people can change the course of history.
-Sonia Johnson
Never doubt that a small, group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead
Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up.
- Studs Terkel
At certain points in history, the energy level of people, the indignation level of people rises. And at that point it becomes possible for people to organize and to agitate and to educate one another, and to create an atmosphere in which the government must do something.
- Howard Zinn, historian
There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.
- Howard Zinn
Cynicism Is Not Realistic
Millions of Americans think that hope is for the foolish, and that the smart people are cynics.
But if all of the people who think of themselves as cynics or skeptics made noise, things would instantly change for the better. In other words, the millions of cynics/skeptics/self-described “realists” aren’t raising a ruckus against the fraud being committed by the giant banks, the corruption of our political system, or the lawlessness and imperial arrogance of our intelligence-military-industrial complex because they think things can’t change.
But by staying silent, they are actually creating the conditions in which nothing can change. As Edmund Burke points out:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
If the millions of cynics woke up to the fact that they are a huge group – especially when combined with the people who are already actively working for the restoration of a liberty, justice and the rule of law – they would suddenly realize that collectively we can change things in a heart beat.
Don't Want to Go First?
Most people don't want to go first ...
Most people want to see others succeeding before they give it a shot.
But the truth - as pointed out by Zbigniew Brzezinski above - is that people are waking up worldwide ... and things are changing quickly.
A few short years ago, Americans wouldn't have believed that the White House would lie us into a major war, that our government would choose Wall Street over the little guy, or that the NSA spied on every American citizen. Now, this is all common knowledge.
A few years ago, most Americans trusted government and corporate leaders. Now, polls show that trust has collapsed, as people realize that our core institutions are rotten with corruption.
You will not be taking the first step. More people than you realize are already working to challenge the corrupt people in positions of power.
When you act to make things better, you're actually joining a large group of people doing the same thing.
And as Hellen Keller pointed out:
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.
Postscript: In any event, hiding our head in the sand doesn't work.
»
- advertisements -
Um ...
"Ridicule of Conspiracy Theories Focuses On Diffusing Criticism of the Powerful"
By the same token, conspiracy theorists themselves serve to deflect attention.
To whit:
Most of these theories, especially the Grand, and Down Through The Ages varieties are so patently absurd that conspiracy theories in general get discredited via the "guilt by association" fallacy.
Truth is, EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Protons conspire with electrons and neutrons to form atoms. Atoms conspire to form molecules, which conspire to form ... you get the idea.
As below, so above - the Inverse Hermetic Principle (which I just made up) states that all human conspiracies, from tribes to religions, political groups, classes, and so forth, are only as stable as their underlying components, which is to say they are constantly mutating due to changes in the substrate - the so-called "hidden ground." These mutations can (and often do) result in completely different outcomes to what was originally intended.
A simple visual explanation should suffice:
http://www.nobodyhere.com/toren.hier
Note: the ability to maintain position is entirely dependent on the layer below.
To hijack Marx: All conspiracies (including Communism) contain the seeds of their own destruction.
Thank you for agreeing with me. If you don't see that you made my point, try studying a little harder...
[Edit: your entire post makes the point, btw. Perhaps you are stuck in your inability to have an original thought mode again]
Goodbye ...
Congressman on the left, lobyist on the right, you and I are in the bowl.
For once I agree with your post, and you decide to beat up on me. Let me clarify what you don't seem to get...
I was not saying YOU are paranoid. I am saying that those who ascribe power to themselves (narcissists) are the ones who are paranoid. They do not want an uprising and go to extreme lengths to prevent reality from becoming a mainstream view. Which is why, as you say, those opposing misappointed leaders are more powerful than they know. Narcissists are weak at heart, and it only takes a little momentum to overwhelm them. Which is why they, in their paranoia, clamp down on everything that opposes them.
Now, because you are light-minded, you thought I was attacking you. For shame for someone who gives the appearance of being thoughtful.
You're welcome.
[Edit: I think I'll hang around here and harass you so that you can unleash all of your borrowed cliches and unoriginal retorts to display your command of your micro-space here].
Jesus H Christ, Mayhem, use a fucking dictionary before you write drivel, dumb-ass. (P.S. dumb-ass isn't in the dictionary.... it's a colloquialism BTW)
Any time you want a lesson in English, Mr. Jim, I'm happy to oblige. I'm sure you are a Rhode Scholar on the subject, of course. But as you would see if you (could) read carefully and exhibit some discernment, my comment is aligned well with the article, as Mr. GW himself agrees.
It's fun to come to the house of GW where there is little but group-think going on. You are just a clown following the masses, unable to think for yourself. But thanks for exposing yourself as such.
If you do not understand that narcissists are inherently paranoid (whereas true leaders are not as their authority comes genuinely from those who give it to them out of reverence and shared values), then you are playing checkers and the rest of us are playing chess.
Enjoy your self-ascribed superiority, Jethro.
Oh ... my apologies.
I wrote an oped stating my opposition to striking Syria that was published in the largest news paper in the state. The morning that it was published, I sent it to my congress critters with a clear statement that a large number of their constituents had already read my thoughts. Even though this would identify me to anybody who knows how to use google, here are some snippets:
We did not attack Syria either, because enough people said NO. The congress critters really got an earful. It is one thing to make an example of a few people to whip a large group into compliance. It is quite another when you might have to whip the entire large group into line at once when that large group outnumbers your gestapo.
Syria was something almost all Americans agreed on. A case where they did not allow us to be divided with their endless race, gender, sexuality and other BS differences which to most people are not a big deal. The media constantly pits people against each other.
Kudos to you for your letter. I also think 8 Russian naval ships and 1 Chinese ship helped change some minds. Props to Putin for telling O and the rest to not push it. The Pentagon knew the shit was about to get serious.
Yeah, getting involved in a real war against a country that can hit back probably did have something to do with it.
One of the things that still pisses me off about Syria is the reason(s) why we were really going to do it. Nobody has come out and stated why, so we're left to speculation. Was it because of a natural gas pipeline that somebody wanted built? Or was it to draw Iran into a war? Or something else? I don't believe for on second that the cocksucker-in-chief was going to do it because of some chemical weapons.
Don't think it was an either-or situation, cowboy. Why not both (gas pipeline and Iran)? The pipeline challenges Russian dominance of the European gas market. Iran is a fine geo-political prize for both its oil and the ability to move Caspian Sea oil to far eastern markets via the Indian Ocean.
Does Washinton take its orders from the House of Saud and Israel on a strict religious or political basis? I think this is a case of the tail wagging the dog -- while I do not doubt an undue influence by Zionists and the Saudis, simply put, our geopolitical strategy is based on energy dominance, esp. in the newly minted former Russian republics (the -stans). Where the theocratic and political desires of both can be reasonably accomodated within that framework, no doubt it is -- otherwise as we've seen in Syria and the sudden rapproachment with Iran, great power politics overshadows.
Neither will, of course, take this lying down. Already we see the PACs and lobbyists beholden to both (and not to mention the dual citizens in Congress and the Executive) working overtime to derail this sudden about face. But, to be frank, the recently completed Chinese pipeline from the Caspian Sea region (which we did not want), the recent energy deal between China and Russia (which we did not want), and Chinese moves to assert and secure rights to oil near Japan (which we do not want) has put the oil barons and US policy planners in one hell of a spot -- they believed that if they could control the marginal price of oil in the far east (in dollars), not only would the Chinese be forced to continue using the dollar for trade (and thus the rest of the world as well), but we would also have our hand on their oil tap: By controlling the marginal price of their energy our elites would then be in a position to directly influence political decisions made by the Chinese leadership. And this is important, because without our hand on their throat, the Chinese will do as they damn well please, notwithstanding New York and London orders to the contrary, once they achieve economic (manufacturing) dominance.
It's just my opinion, but the most likely thing that would have caused US policymakers to suddenly about face on Iran would have been a joint Russian - Chinese threat to denominate their oil deal in gold...
He was going to do it becauuse the Israeli government and the House of Saud told him to do it.
Starting out as a lackey to the banks, he may have gone on to find other boots to lick, or there may be something to this money elite thing after all. But that's conspiracy theory.
Still, he was going to push the button because people he wanted to please told him to do it. When Putin put warships at cruise missile range of those two, and when the US military warned him what a mutiny looked like, he decided not to. Or his decider did.
Howdy doody, guys and gals,
Here be a complementary article, highlighting quite specifically the new arena of command and control which the status quo have no hope of taking over to rule and enslave all and sundry in a mirroring of the past ....... http://thedailybell.com/news-analysis/34984/The-Internet-Reformation-Is-Hard-to-Contain/
Vice Admiral Michael Rogers will not have his sorrows to seek in a flurry of fields which be way beyond the normal public ken of practically all.
Oh .... and this shows how easy things can be changed with just a very few acting as leaders :-) .... http://youtu.be/RXMnDG3QzxE
Enjoy the apparent insane madness.
Its why they've allowed the use of 'Water Cannon' in England, why the mayor of London, the in-bred peodophile dumb cunt 'Johnson' has urged the police to go 'Medieval' on our arses.
They are, shit, fucking, scared.
There will be a reckoning, and believe me when I say this, it will be fucking outrageous, brutal, directed.
They know it. We are many my friends, they are the scum that by birth rite or connections are the few.
Bank on it.
Theme song alert!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfK-WX2pa8c
There will be a reckoning, and believe me when I say this, it will be fucking outrageous, brutal, directed
If I can help I'd travel over there at my own expense.
+1
Always love your posts brother.
i agree w/ this:
but on the other hand, could it be possible that that would be the reason why many posters here were banned recently? because they publicly pointed out the obvious truths and facts? and instead of being ignored and publicly ridiculed, being banned made their arguments (rants?) legitimate? just asking b/c historically there is nothing more dangerous than truth and the truth must be suppressed at all costs by those in power afraid of criticism that exposes their criminal acts
amen.
and though i'm sure you won't have any problem believing this, my attempt at up-arrowing this post failed.
so i'm greening you the ole fashioned way.
take that, fascists!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjNRmSPVMM
free our brothers in exile! (even (and especially) the ones i don't like)
janus
Second the problem up (or down) arrowing. Have had *much* trouble. A little help Tylers?
Certainly hope this is true G.W.
And quite frankly it would even go much further if "ZH" and (yourself) would keep post(s) up just a bit longer that "stir the pot" on issues like the inclusion of the "9/11 Truth movement" and it's significance within the alternative media including your writeups -in particular the one posted 01/29/2014.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/60-americans-value-privacy-anti-terror-protections.html
Son of Captain Nemo: I've written a tremendous amount on 9/11 in the past. You might be suprised...
In all seriousness, if enough ZH readers ask me to post on 9/11, I will. But otherwise, I won't ...
To paraphrase Lord Northcliffe, 'post and be damned'.
Because if the truth comes out about 911 everything else we need to smash the Israeli-owned government/bankster kleptocracy will inevitably follow.
GW -- I hope you will resume posting about the 9-11 crime. We need to bring pressure on the government to start a new investigation -- one in which the investigators can put witnesses under oath and the report is not written in the White House.
The mainstream media has been scared off the 9-11 story. Why and How has that happened? There is a story there for sure.
Thanks for all you do.
Progress is being made, such as this letter written by Dr. Wm. Pepper on behalf of ae911truth.org to the Inspector General of the U.S. Commerce Department regarding their fraudulent ommissions in their WTC 7 report.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf
The I.G. has already forwarded it to the NIST requesting a response.
Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti, et al, have been trying to publish a rebuttal to Bazant's papers on the 'collapse' of the twin towers in a discussion to a paper for the prestigious Journal of Engineering Mechanics and have been told their pointing out gross errors are "out of scope" even after the discussion paper had been accepted. Tony summarizes in this podcast intereview: http://noliesradio.org/archives/74057
I hope you'll follow this GW as we are talking about professional publications with gross errors, fabrications and ommissions that are being called out. Should comprise a decent article of hard facts in the near future.
There is a LOT of politics at journals. See:
Journal Retracts GMO Study After Hiring Former Monsanto Employee
I would say that depends on what the topic is. For GMO foods, you're damn right there is going to be a lot of politics involved, because a few companies have a lot of money to make. We still don't really understand what the effects of introducing new proteins into the food supply are. But a journal that publishes research on neutrino oscillations is probably not going to be as politically charged. It can get really bad with medical journals, not necessarily because of politics (politics can come into play here - the medical field is all over the place on this,) but because a lot of the medical researchers don't really understand the scientific method and really don't understand statistics*. That's not to say that there isn't top notch research in that field, because there is. It is to say, however, that I don't automatically trust it because it was in a medical journal.
I think the bottom line with science and journals is, if it is a politically charged topic, it will be tough for the journals to get away from the politics. Especially when there is money to be made. *cough* Monsanto selling seeds for plants that can be sprayed with another of Monsanto's products, RoundUp. *cough*
*I once saw a study that had a 70 something gene "predictor" of some medical outcome, and they had searched through 10s of thousands of genes in a sample size that included data from a couple hundred people. I would expect an erroneous results based on the number of variables and the number of samples. The predictor was based on the n-dimensional euclidian distance from some mean. Well, that's simple math, considering that Pythagorus works in n-dimensions. A2+B2 = C2 generalizes to A2+B2+C2+D2+...=ALPHA2 In 70 some dimensions, it doesn't take a lot of minor variances from the actual mean to add up to a big distance. In a small sample size, you'll get a lot of minor variances from the actual mean that are nothing more than statistical flukes.
The point is that (slow) progress is being made in the official reports and peer reviewed literature. Why? Because the lies are so blatant, fucking obvious is why.
If your point is that they'll fight -- and fight dirty -- then on that we can agree.
Ignatius
I've approached all of them. UNAC, Code Pink, VIPS, ACLU, BORDC, Amnesty International... You name them and I've reached out to them. As much as the shock of seeing those buildings disintegrate into dust was the most horrible thing in my life, along with the relentless wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands in those countries the U.S. continues to accuse of committing those horrible crimes through the peddling of that false narrative, what is far worse are the institutions and the people that head them that I've just sighted that Know the Truth but are unwilling to take it to the fullest extent unconditionally for fear of retribution.
We're a small band, but I'd rather fight the good fight all the way then present just "half the loaf" and be labeled a sell out!
As we get close to the 'next one' I keep reminding myself that the only thing left in this life or the next is your name and the baggage you carry!
Agree ...
I know you have G.W., but let's face it...
The 9/11 "Truth" movement has gotten a raw deal on too many levels from those that are the so-called champions of the peace, and civil liberties "milieau". My question after all these years is "Why"? After all the damage and destruction that has been done -why wouldn't they fully embrace the singular catalyst that brought us all of this turmoil that can be proven not just through testimony of the IC but more importantly through forensic science?
While I have respect for the David Swanson's, Medea Benjamin's, Richard and Brian Becker', as well as the Anthony Romero's, I'll never forgive them for showing the total disregard and lack respect and objectivety that is due the professional science community that has sacrificed everything in the proof they have brought to the publics attention considering it's the singular event that gave us all of these wars of choice and declared a "state of emergency" without end and without equal that has bankrupted this Nation both financially and more important "spiritually".
Peace
If it helps you understand, I knew a guy who was seconded by our company (at that time) to assist the NIST - in a very peripheral way, it must be admitted. When I challenged him on the shocking lack of professionalism in thier report he said nothing other than that 'you have no idea of the pressure we were under'. He refused to elaborate.
Make of it what you will.
.
G.W.
Appreciate the response but that answers you provided are only a few representative examples among many of the "divide and conquer" strategy that has been successfully waged by the elites on the "Truthers"...
You didn't address why those within the peace and civil liberties movement(s) (names provided) have blatantly gone out of their way to turn their backs on the 9/11 Truth establishment since Day 1?
Can you give me an honest reason why a house divided, or one that is "atomized" is the better alternative nearly 13 years later given our present state, and the ever increasing risks and probability that we may be facing yet more just like it in the near future as morale for war actions continues to ebb in this Country?
I have no illusions why the subject matter of the 9/11 Commission Report is still taboo to many, especially when one considers the number of peace and civil liberties lead activists still tied to the MSM and professional BAR Association which is regrettable, but at some point when every other avenue has been exhausted and reached failure, when do you look for alternatives that offer the best and most significant path towards a positive resolution on such a matter as this for all involved?
Any academic who comes out on 9/11 will at a minimum have his research funding cut to zero. Many have been dismissed and/or have fraudulent charges levelled against them and been investiaged by the IRS. Even if the charges don't stand up you'd need to be a special person to persist in the face of such constant pressure. I know I wouldn't have that strength.
If you're a government or private sector employee, well again, I don't need to spell it out. If you're in one of the charitable institutions you seem to be referring to, well, just watch your income plummet.
So only retired people, especially those from academia or the military, are really in a position to take on the mantle.
Still, nil desperandum!
And this is why Rafferty we'll be seeing another one. -Mark my words.
This is what makes this place "ZH" so unique.
It studies in the most minute and excruciating detail what obsesses and controls us and it isn't sound money that's for certain!
For clarity I would appreciate it if you would replace what you just took out of your response. If you can't or won't I'll take that as a "No".
SCN, please ping me by email so we can continue discussion ...
<deleted>
IMO GW, don't post on the events that occurred on 9/11. It is a divisive issue and you will not convince anybody of anything at this point in time, at least not with respect to the events leading up to and on the day of 9/11. People have their minds made up, one way or another. Where you will make headway is the loss of liberties and the rise of the police state as a result of 9/11 and other events. Choose your battles wisely.
I still did not believe it until I saw the video by all those building engineers and architects. Molten steel and iron from thermite. I still do not understand why they took down Building 7. That one was a totally controlled demolition. It is the smoking gun.
EV,
I agree ... the reason I've stopped writing much on 9/11 is that most people already have their minds made up one way or the other.
I do still write stuff like this:
Americans Are Finally Learning About False Flag Terror
<deleted>
....and they're not terrified of any citizens taking to the streets, protesting, banging pots and pans or "marching" in designated areas...
They're prepared for that. That's what they want. Then they can make examples of the protesters, and co-opt their movement (Occupy anyone, hello. Bueller....Bueller?)
What terrifies the living shit out of the psychopaths is if we all just sat home and took a month off from work.
That rocks them to the core. Imagine that, a month of "no productivity".
Being parasites, they make their money off the skim, and your toil.
Sit home...and it's game, set, match.
No violence needed. Have a month long keg / block party. Party with the neighbors, bang your ole lady.... go fishin' with the kids. That absolutely fucking terrifies them. Oh yea, everyone withdraw $1K from the banks....
"They're prepared for that. That's what they want. Then they can make examples of the protesters, and co-opt their movement (Occupy anyone, hello. Bueller....Bueller?)"
Exactly. Anyone with a brain naturally doesn't want to stick their head above the facade and have it chopped off for the sake of an apathetic, ignorant, fully propagandized citizenry.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
“Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.” - Thomas Edison
“Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.” - Thomas Edison
Thanks for that quote. It should be internalized by readers at this web site....
Tax strike!