"Project Censored" Story Can Be a Bridge to the Left"
RL McGee Tue, 01/02/2007 - 5:57pm
As we all know, the alternative media has not been very receptive of
9/11 truth, which is puzzling considering how adament they are about
the lies of Iraq. Well, take a step farther back! I am hopeful, however,
that this latest Project Censored story will open some eyes. This
publication is held in high regard (and rightfully so) by the Left. We
need them to take note of what's going on.
In case you haven't seen yet, Story #18 of Project Censored '07
features BYU physics professor, Steven E. Jones, publicly debunking
the official WTC collapse. Among other things, he reports having
found residue of thermite and of sulfur in the wreckage. Scientifically
speaking, this is a "smoking gun." We should push this hard!
R.L. McGee
- RL McGee's blog
- Login to post comments
Why is the Left out there in left field?
We have more urgent tasks in front of us than what I am about to suggest -- I mean, lets first get people aware however we can, and bring the country back from fascism not to mention justice.
But I would hope to see some good psychological analyses of why the left has been so out in left field on this. What is the psychology of this remarkable denial?
Some have suggested that Alexander Cockburn won't admit to missing a big one here, that Amy Goodman is beholden to the Ford Foundation, that Alternet doesn't want to look like kooks, that the Democrats don't want to look soft on terrorism.
Do these explanations cover it? Or is there a parental thing going on -- viz, I once worked at an elementary school where a kid was coming to school obviousloy beat up. But he would never say that his parents beat him; on the contrary, he raved about them. The Left is doing likewise it seems.
I think it's more
I think it's more complicated than some make out. It's a combination of fear (being labeled a "conspiracy theorist"), comfort (getting comfortable in one's institutional role), confusion (not understanding how important 911 truth is), denial (Freud 101) and, in a few cases, shillery (grossly overplayed, imo).
People on the so-called "left" may be more attuned to the 911 op than the so-called "right" -- keeping in mind that these labels are largely illusory. What I mean to say is that polls demonstrate that "democrats" are more likely to buy complicity than "republicans". Again, these stats don't really prove anything; while Clinton was in office, the majority of the "right" regarded Waco (rightly) as an atrocity, whereas the "left" was more likely to excuse the operation because "their man" was in office. Also, these polls don't take into account the international scene.
There's another issue as well: the so-called "radical" left does not subscribe to the democrat/republican paradigm as "liberals" do. Like the paleoconservative right, the radical left regard both parties as equally corrupt.
The "new left" is not communist but anarchist in persuasion, so rejects the authoritarian state as do old-style conservatives.
So what we have here is something rather unusual, in which the "radical" left and the "paloeconservative" right finds a great deal common ground, rejecting the prefab template that elites have prepared for us.
Left gatekeepers get the bulk of attention because they "command" larger numbers, but the truth is that libertarians have been equally complicit. Witness Antiwar.com. Anyone in a position of authority is scared shitless of 911 truth.
Average people on all sides of the political spectrum (except the neocons, and, to a lesser extent, hard-core democrats) are awake to 911 truth; the problem comes in the form of self-professed (or implicit) "leaders".
That's why 911 truth is special. It's bottom up awakening all the way. No leaders telling us what to think. It's the way a revolution should happen, needs to happen, for real change.
Otherwise we're just changing the guard.