(In response to private correspondence in recent days)

I welcome and appreciate the comments of David S. (USA) on the issues we have been discussing in recent weeks. He has years of experience in activism and civil disobedience, which I respect.

Thanks again too to Richard (Doug) Brinkman of Edmonton 9/11 Truth for all his feedback and support.

Richard and I will appear on the Kevin Barrett show (Dynamic Duo) on GCN stream 4 today at 2 pm Pacific) to talk about our CI initiative.

http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm

**

With regard to the Civil Information vs Civil Disobedience issue, I have only been referring to these in the context of 9/11 Truth activism and not other areas of social activism. Where I have been referring to Civil Disobedience (CD), I do not mean this in a strictly legal sense. I include rude, aggressive, anti-social or radical behaviour, which may or may not be "illegal" behaviour. I am not opposed to CD in a general sense. Indeed, I do feel that people should not follow the codified law if it is unconstitutional or counter to their own conscience. Sometimes the law is an ass, sometimes unconstitutional  and sometimes immoral, though the latter is subjective. In America especially, dissent is a patriotic duty. As David rightly points out though, even disobedience of the law or of "authority" need not be "uncivil". The level and quality of resistance in such situations is something that each individual in those circumstances will have to decide for themselves. I definitely do not want to counsel anyone on that. Nonetheless, everyone should be aware that any resistance to "authority" these days is, unfortunately, often met with overwhelming and disproportionate force and total abuse of power.

I differentiate 9/11 Truth activism and the methods we employ from other activism for several reasons. Firstly, I think most people now realize that the war is illegal and immoral; that they were lied to about the reasons why they went to war, and about the true nature of the mission, but many still cling to the hope that they can at least continue to justify it on the basis of 9/11. The war had a lot of resistance from the start, though not enough to stop it. Many of those who did support it are now deeply incensed. Many, I'm sure, have had to confront their own inner demons, for following along blindly and I for having engaged in hate, perhaps even against friends and family. There is a lot of shame, hurt and a lot of rage forming, and rightfully so. So this issue alone is coming to a head may lead to the ouster of the Bush regime before it's term has ended. In my opinion though, that is not enough. The Democrats have, for the most part, gone a long for the ride and there are other reasons to fear them gaining power if the Republicans are ousted (at least under the present leadership and some of the aspiring leaders). Many are still not willing to face that fact and to denounce both parties. On the whole though, people are seeing it for themselves. They don't need us to tell them but are now not so offended to hear the Bush government being criticized for it.

The SPP / North American Union is becoming another such issue. Though it's not nearly as widely known, it is well documented and beginning to get some mainstream coverage. I'm sure that people will be just as outraged about that, without bringing 9/11 into it, once it receives more exposure. It is not a hard issue to sell. People have seen and been living with the effects of NAFTA for years. As they become aware of it, people overwhelmingly oppose it and see it as of little value to them, although the government and media maintain that it will "protect them from terrorists" whom they still fear. Generally, it is an easy sell. From there, even talk of the globalist agenda will not seem so far fetched.

9/11 is different. The reality of those events will be the hardest for most people to accept. People were shaken to the core. They were traumatized and hypnotized by it, and told lies about it over and over. They are programmed. Many people have a hard time believing that their own government or fellow citizens could have allowed, much less carried out such barbarism, right in front of their faces, and it won't be so easy to give up that belief in Osama and "terrorists under every rock" (much like Santa or the tooth fairy). For others, admitting that they did not see that which was in front of them and trust their initial instincts or sensory perceptions is tough. There is pride and ego involved here.

9/11 is the ultimate lie and betrayal, and the support pillar for the whole deck of cards that threatens to bring it all crashing down. It is the proverbial straw that will break the camel's back - not just for Bush and Cheney, but for the Democrats, and for their global elite controllers. It's the Holy Grail. We have accumulated tons of proof that the official story is bogus and it is obvious to us and at times frustrating. Many can't or are unwilling to look at it, for any number of personal reasons, as mentioned above. Additionally, we have the MSM desperately clinging to the official version and blocking the facts, as well as ridiculing and demonizing those who question it. The other lies are exposing themselves and the criminals and the media can't hide them, but they are guarding this one tenaciously. Their credibility and the agenda is on line. The recent attacks by O'Reilly, Beck and Maher as well as the recently introduced "Thought Crime" legislation demonstrate this. We have to be careful not to cause further mental and emotional resistance to 9/11 Truth amongst those who already see the other lies. It is a selling job, not a telling job. We have to educate, not alienate. Empathize, not criticize.  We especially do not want to alienate the police, military and security personnel. They, of course, will be called upon to quell dissent and to enforce martial law, if it should come to that. It is critical that these people realize that their brothers and sisters were sacrificed on September 11th, and that we are concerned with their future safety too.

Similarly, I think we should not antagonize the media and it's icons (nor for that matter, the Chomsky types). The media, especially TV, is a weapon of mass destruction - of, by, and for the governments and global elites. The talking heads that people have trusted, as well as many columnists, still have a lot of power sway public opinion and are paid handsomely to deceive and perpetuate their master's agenda. Many of those in the lower levels, I'm certain, must be waking up and questioning what is really going on, and realizing that the organizations they work with are corrupt, not telling the truth and not working in the people's best interests, but they are career people and not likely to step out of line. The media machine is a beast that feeds on negativity and which perpetuates it. Reporters know that their editors (whether local, national or international) want to focus on the worst in human behaviour, on disasters, as well as trivialities because they know that the masses will buy it and come back for more. Regardless of how a reporter may personally feel about an issue, they know they have spin it to get it past the editors, or at least counter balance it, if they want to keep a pay cheque coming in. So getting an unbiased, much less favourable report is tough for many reasons.

With regard to 9/11, we do need to be tough on the media but more methodical. In Vancouver, for example, we established a subcommittee nicknamed "the Ministry of Truth", which monitors the media (print, radio and TV) for propaganda and hit pieces. There is a good group of writers and speakers there to counter the MSM with factual, thoughtful commentary, or occasionally sarcastic and witty pieces if really warranted. Some of these writers have also established themselves in the alternative press, writing regular columns on the 9/11 issue. I think this is more effective than getting in the faces of the MSM on the street or in public places, where they can control and spin the situation, and use it against us. Additionally, rather than focus on the male dominated talk radio stations, we targeted stations that have mainly female hosts and a largely female audience. While these shows do not often get into politics, they were very receptive when we could offer them interesting and credible guests to discuss 9/11. Women, in my experience, are more likely to listen to new information without being reflexively dismissive, and more likely to pass on that information to their friends, colleagues and spouses or partners without fear of ridicule. In this way, you can create a buzz. I think this is more positive approach.

Lastly, I'm beginning to believe that even saying "9/11 was an inside job" may be going too far in terms of effectiveness.  It feeds into the "conspiracy theorist" labelling and sets up reflexive mental and emotional resistance. It's not that I don't think it was not an inside job, just that such statements are judgemental, show prejudice, and may be condescending to some, considered traitorous or be labelled as such. What we know for sure is that the official story is a pack of lies and obfuscations, and that there has been a massive cover up of the facts. We have the facts are on our side. We can demonstrate that they have deliberately withheld evidence and testimony which points to an inside job. We also have hundreds of credible people who now stand with us. We just want a real, fair, impartial investigation, and justice for all. "Investigate 9/11" is my preferred slogan, as we really just want to persuade people to look at the evidence and make up their own minds, rather than rubbing their noses in it or shoving it down their throats. Nor should we be or appear to be politically biased as that brings up fears of ulterior motives and agendas. We often will only have one chance to make an impression, whether as individuals or as groups, so I think we should try and make it as positive as possible and put your best foot forward.

For the most part, I think we have been civil and it has been successful. We are winning and there's no need to change tactics. Hence the attacks on us. Counter attacks, in my opinion are counter productive and aid the enemies of truth. When they lose and become belligerent, and attempt to use force to maintain their position, there is still the other option.

Again, my position in short, it is a selling job, not a telling job. Educate, don't alienate. Empathize, don't criticize. Build bridges, not burn them, do our best not to cause harm, nor give those we hope to reach any reason to fear us. Be the change we want to see.


C.I., eh! 


Wayne

Ci! I'm not sure who's voice I was hearing on the Kevin b. program equating c.i. to marketing/advertising...how a commercial doesn't sell one on a product. On the surface this may be true, but the millions paid in ad campaigns do not with the convince you in 60 seconds or less to purchase their product, the campaigns put out by Madison Ave. are much more sinister than that as they rely on subliminal messaging...that is to say after you've passed a dozen mcdonalds logos on your way home from work, and are greeted with a mcdonald's ad on tv when you get home at super time - the idea is that you're suddenly craving mcdonald's and you don't know why. The same goes for information. Ron Paul, for instance is a good example on the grass roots level. A year ago when I said his name it was "Who's Ron Paul?" Then it was "Where have I heard that name before?" and now its "Ron Paul is a rockstar!" So keep up the good work folks!

-Emily

Thanks Emily! Great video and great points.

I also have some background in communications, psychology, sales and marketing and think that this what is really missing in this movement. We have to be smarter and more mature, and stop demanding attention.

I shake my head in disbelief at some of the activist's posts on the major 9/11 site lately and i rarely go there anymore. It's getting hard to listen to AJ too, who seems to be the biggest cheerleader for these antics. I love AJ. He is right on many things, but have to disagree on this point.

Some of these "Truth Squads" remind me of little kids demanding their parent's attention when it comes to the MSM. I say grow up! Face the facts. They (MSM) don't love us and never will. In fact they hate us and hope we die. Deal with it! Get over it! Then let's get on with our work and define for ourselves and who we are instead of having a collective public "hissy fit" and getting slapped down by the mom (MSM). We will never achieve our real goals by ranting, raving and acting like thugs. That is negative. The general public does not want to hear that and will dismiss you out of hand. Nor do they want to be interrupted or inconvenienced by juvenile stunts.

We have everything we need. We have the truth. We have tons of evidence. There are far more effective, positive and mature ways to get our message out, and it is pretty simple if you think about it. There are so many ways to "be the media" (without putting up more "hissy fit" videos on YouTube).

There are plenty of other issues out there that you can and should confront the politicians and elite people with, with facts that even the MSM cannot dispute. Pick one and go for it if you feel the need.

Folks, watch the video. I am sure you will see Emily's point. Then re-read what i posted above.

PS. I am trying to get an mp3 of Barrett's show and will put it up as soon as i have it.

Yes, without being accused of being a Rust Limfat fan, DITTO! And, we might stop referring to 9/11 as "controlled demolition" even though we know it was...:o