Well actually it WAS an organised/orchestrated campaign.
That's why i signed.
But we did get our mention.
And I think we should continue to petition Moyers to host David Ray Griffin on his program.
I'm still very distressed that Moyers is a member of the CFR and Bilderberg Group.
Maybe we should also ask him to explain the following quote:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march toward a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
It's difficult to see this incident as anything but a disgrace and an embarrassment; a setback for our credibility, and the unnecessary class-clowning accomplishment of having scored points for the movement's most ardent detractors — supposing they actually watch Bill Moyers' "Journal."
Regardless of whatever lame hobbyhorse someone now wants to lash to this admitted "orchestrated effort", there's no way to remove the stink of manure we've all been obliged to step in and need to scrape off
No excuse can be claimed for the prodigious idiocy of flaunting the single, reasonable, clearly stated rule of Moyers' generously civic-minded invitation. If anyone's determined to provide ammunition to the firing squad our movement faces, don't go handing out live rounds, alright?
I can't recall being so chagrined for our worthy cause as when I listened to Moyers describe the result of an "orchestrated effort". The fact that any number of people can be persuaded to wear identical "Kick Me Hard" signs on their backs while marching in lock-step, pants around their ankles, across the televised public square, isn't promising for this movement's future.
And now you want to bend over to present for another swipe by adding this cheeky crap about Moyers himself? We may really have to go all they way back to the playgrounds of pre-adolescence for words to properly analogize this debacle.
Bill Moyers is the ONE man who's even on television, because he fought a long, difficult, principled battle against the relentless Republican goon squad and their campaign to exile him from public broadcasting altogether. And now week after week Moyers gives us the thoroughly unique opportunity to hear the voices of the disenfranchised, hear the voices of great educators, artists, activists and intellectuals. It's on Bill Moyers' program that we get an opportunity see passionate conversation about what America has been and disturbingly is becoming... for our continuing education, edification and enlightenment. You people don't seem to be regular viewers...
You appear to protest too much for being busted for your ill-conceived, ill-considered cheating. Flaunting the sole rule that was given for sending 'your choice of a book you'd like the next president to read...' and so celebrating being "named on the air" for openly and indefensibly failing to honor this rule is truly delusional -- and worse -- it broadcasts the implication that an "orchestrated effort" was necessary to name a David Ray Griffin title because it might not otherwise be done by enough individual, independent, free-thinking people, who's numbers are in the millions.
This kind of juvenile delinquency tarnishes the very heart and meaning of the 9/11 Truth case, which might have benefited greatly by the chance to reach the very people of Moyers' audience who, as yet unpersuaded or uninformed, are the most likely of allies and comrades in arms if they will read the evidence and investigate for themselves the cruel facts of that day.
This video here makes a travesty of honest information, is bloated with unsubstantiated accusations, pointlessly edited for the visitors to this site, and asks pointed questions for which no basis in fact is provided.
Indeed, I have written numerous letters to the Ombudsman of PBS asking why the Sibel Edmonds case and the 9/11 Truth Movement are not being covered... by The News Hour, by Frontline...
The Journal of Bill Moyers is a very independent and personal show, and it reflects Moyers' passions. I agree that David Griffin would make a superlative guest on Bill Moyers' program, and if that's what you want to accomplish, THAT'S the "orchestrated effort" you need to try making. Get a petition going. Make phone calls to his production office. Learn how to get something done honestly. And recognize that the world you're engaging with is a serious one; learn some basic manners of debate. Maybe just some basic manners.
You can't cheat on an invitation from Moyers to answer a question directed to ALL his viewers and then throw accusations around when you're discovered breaking the one condition he asked be met. We are not yet the brainless, monolithic tribe our adversaries are... are we? I have to wonder sometimes.
Yes, I'd wish that the Moyers' list had Griffin's book in the top ten, and as vital and urgent as 9/11 Truth is, it simply hasn't broken through to a wide American audience. Follow the NYT Bestseller lists for Hardcover Non-Fiction and Trade Paperback Non-Fiction for a few years if you want an idea of what's being read, routinely and in large numbers, by Americans.
This "orchestrated effort" was beneath our cause and hurt it. It's absurd to celebrate the Griffin book being "mentioned" on the show, especially in the context in which it was mentioned. And then to make wild accusations about Moyers... who gives more back to America each week then most of us can dream of ever doing. Christ, get your heads on screwed on straight and become smarter people before you start making charges and posting videos.
Do us all a great favor and refrain from acting in any capacity in the name of 9/11 Truth, okay? Consider the total disgust with which many of us heard Moyers citing David Ray Griffin's essential and magnificent work in the context of its having been disqualified as the result of an "orchestrated effort" not to honor one simple, reasonable condition. That's not the mission or the method of this movement. It can't be. We will go the way of crop circles before you can say "controlled demolition" one more time.
This was a fucking disaster perpetrated by juvenile greedheads. I mean, what's next for 9/11 Truth? What courtesy of public discourse and debate will be pissed on next from the great height of hubris exhibited here?
SHAME.
"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon
First of all, let's take a look at Bill Moyers initial invitation for readers to submit book suggestions.
===========
FROM BILL MOYERS WEBSITE:
Power Reading
On the CBS EVENING NEWS, Katie Couric asks candidates from both parties which book, other than the Bible, they would bring with them to the White House and posits:
"It's true you can't judge a book by its cover, but you can tell a lot about a person by what he or she reads."
Find out what the candidates said on the CBS NEWS Web site.
What do you think?
Do you agree that you can tell a lot about a person from what he or she reads?
Were you surprised by what the candidates picked?
What one book do you want your next president to read?
***Be sure to watch BILL MOYERS JOURNAL next week, when Bill suggests the book he'd like the next President to read (if he can pick just one).***
Greetings to all. This is Bill Moyers, and I want you to know I read every offering this evening. I wish that I could answer all of them because each one of you has made an interesting suggestion for a book. We'll give air time to a few next Friday night and put out a press release with a list of all the books recommended. I appreciate very much your taking the invitation seriously.
Now let's take a look at Bill Moyers followup 'suggested reading list'.
FROM BILL MOYERS WEBSITE:
Bill Moyers' Reading Recommendation
Last week, Bill Moyers asked viewers what book, other than the Bible, they recommend the next President bring to the White House. In the clip below, he reviews many of your submissions and reveals his own pick for the future President-elect.
We invite you to continue sharing your thoughts on Moyers' and others' recommendations and submitting your own suggestions for Presidential reading.
(Please note that due to your overwhelming response our "complete list" keeps growing and growing. We invite you to view our books feature, complete with slideshow of popular suggestions and video of authors, as well as, peruse all the suggestions on the blog.)
Here are the current top titles.
Naomi Klein, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE
Howard Zinn, A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
Did you notice that I only listed the top 3 books? So how did the book 'THE ART OF NON-WAR' make it to number 3?
Check out what author Kim Michaels posted on his/her website:
==========================================
Do you want to help promote our books?
If so, here is a free opportunity. On the American Public Television Website, host Bill Moyers is asking viewers to recommend the one book that the next president of the United States should take to the White House. If you feel so inclined, please recommend The Art of Non-war.
Go to this page to post a recommendation (you have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to post an entry.)
So it appears that the orchestrated campaign to promote Kim Michaels THE ART OF NON-WAR was legitimate according to Bill Moyers Journal, BUT... the 'orchestrated campaign' to promote David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking' was not?
Face it people. PBS doesn't want to touch 9/11 Truth!
Well, I sure didn't know about the campaign to promote "The Art of Non-War", and given the deafening silence that's greeted my numerous attempts to urge the PBS Ombudsman to cover the Sibel Edmond's case, and the 9/11 Truth Movement, I'm not in any humor to cut them much slack. So I take your point and appreciate the information.
Still, an argument that boils down to, "Well, they did it, so why shouldn't we?" isn't exactly terra firma beneath our feet. Bill Moyers' Journal proves itself time and again to be a tiny island of sanity and fearless commentary in a vast, toxic, shark-infested, and horizon-less sea of drek.
If the show requested individuals and not tag-team collectives with agendas to offer suggestions, then those were the rules.
Do you have any idea if the Moyers people know about this Art of Non-War business? I'm willing at this point to give Moyers the benefit of the doubt, and if it's pointed out to him, he might have to remove it; he's certain to see in any case, the weakness of people to simply act individually now and again.
My "anger" (as someone else here suggests) can't possibly hurt the 9/11 Movement, and to think so is to greatly underestimate the power, purpose and breadth of the movement. That's just silly.
But it's like this: the movement has got to grow and mature and change if it's gonna survive and succeed at advancing its message. Governments kill their people all the time, and history was not devoid of despicable acts of craven self-interest before 2001.
I was looking at a copy of "The Commission" in a bookstore the other day and turning to the bibliography I was rather startled NOT to see the books of D. R. Griffin listed there. Now it's a fine thing for a reporter from the NYT to find a story that's been under his nose for over 7 years, as well as publisher willing to expose the Zelikow influence on the commission... and more power to anyone who can break old stories for unconscious readers. But time is precious and it's running out. Everything in our current world really is at stake, but history tells us just how little RAM it sets aside for preserving "truth".
I'm not "angry" with the movement, I'm terribly frustrated by the silly slip-ups it can't afford to make, and by its death-like grip on provocation as a strategy; with assertive slogans that do little more than polarize a citizenry that should by now have a far greater familiarity the whitewash of the 9/11 commission report, a basic grasp of Newtonian physics, and a sense of curiosity if not outrage about not knowing what did and/or didn't happen on 9/11.
We will forever find ourselves whistling by a graveyard if we cannot coalesce around a formula for raising our voices in a harmonic tune that catches people's ears. It's no longer about producing evidence, it's about having a voice that anyone wants to listen to... one that can't afford a kind of grabass agitprop that only alienates those we must educate.
Anarchist history is written in the blood of those who lost, not those who won... and it's little read these days.
"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon
But we need to project what we know as well as not use the "inside job" meme to turn people away. I am guilty of over-using the "inside job" phrase and the more I think about it, the more I feel that it is accurate, but lacks the gravitas and beckoning intention that we so need to communicate right now. I said before that " inside job" feels like a second rate bank robbery in some second rate crime novel. Meanwhile, we are talking about mass murder, mass treason and mass psychological trauma.
We can't back away from what we know to be true. Many people will appreciate our knowledge if we put it forth, not as an inside understanding, but as a public call for justice. Folks will appreciate our willingness to speak with clarity as long as we don't feel like a cult with stale memes.
I think we need to say more than "investigate 9-11."
Myshkin, I appreciate your discomfort and anger, and I wouldn't shy away from a healthy sense of anger or at least indignation, as potentially catalytic. This movement has some problems with healthy self-critique and transformation, partially because we have been so ridiculed and ostracized that there are deep defensive mechanisms at work. And now is the time to move forward quickly , shed skin and put forward our deepest, clearest and most engaging messages.
I think we should hone in on the idea that the cover-up itself, no matter what it hides, is ongoing treason and cruelty to the family members.
"The 9-11 cover-up is treason." We need to articulate this as a fact, because it is one. This type of message is strong enough to clarify the morality and legal-nature of the situation and express the gravity of the moment while not getting stuck in debating a specific scenario for the conspiracy itself.
Some must continue onwards with articulating the make-up of the 9-11 conspiracy itself and begin pointing figures toawrds likely suspects so we can get the people and any politicians or media folk with some type of conscience or sense of self-preservation left to feel that much of the work is done and dealing with it won't damage them, unless they decide to continue to side with the treasonous cover-up.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree with so much of what you say, most especially with your observation that "the movement has some problems with healthy self-critique and transformation..." Your diagnosis sounds fair enough, but more importantly I agree about moving forward quickly, shedding skin, and so forth.
On the matter of slogans, I said my piece (and maybe rather more) several days ago in a comment at a news post titled, "In The Face Of John McCain And 9/11 Truth," elsewhere on this site.
In brief, I feel that the movement would do well to move away from "protest" which I think has attracted as many people as it is going to, and that's given us the opportunity, much needed, to express our outrage. Not to've done so would've been impossible. There is much to be very angry about. Someone here has said that my "anger" has, "hurt the movement," which is a bit preposterous. What happened on 9/11, and the policies that 9/11 has been used to promulgate have resulted in an anger that is almost boundless, is unquestionably righteous, and gave birth to this movement itself.
At this point, and to my way of thinking, any door that can be opened that allows for the greatest number of people to pass through and join us in calling for a new and independent investigation, is the door we must put our shoulders to. I'm suggesting that the assertion of 9/11 being an inside job is NOT that great door. It is not the door that encourages the most people into this movement. We cannot sustain a movement that clings to a sense of being beset by enemies and opposition; we must have a movement that is prepared to give way to a general consensus. That consensus must be our goal, for only such a consensus can prevail, can achieve the process by which the truth is sought and revealed.
What so many of us have researched for so long and drawn conclusions about must be leveraged with skill, not protest, to encourage our moms and our cousins and the guy at the corner grocery store to want to know what happened because they now know they were lied to. They don't need to become experts of all the very complex evidence, they need only know they were lied to, and grasping the significance of that, they will demand to know the truth. That great demand will not be silenced, and it cannot be marginalized.
That's what I would like to see happen. I'd like to see Americans in great numbers simply "getting it" that they were lied to. The rest will follow... as night the day.
"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon
"Still, an argument that boils down to, "Well, they did it, so why shouldn't we?" isn't exactly terra firma beneath our feet. " - You're offering a strawman argument here, assuming a juvenile perspective on the part of the truth movement. Keep this up & your credibility will suffer.
The argument, as I interpret it, is...
If other books are not held to the 'orchestrated campaign' standard then why is Debunking 9/11 Debunking subject to that standard?
The answer to the above question is that PBS actively went looking (by their own admission) for some reason to reject votes for David Griffin's book while at the same time overlooking their own reasoning if it applied to something they 'like'.
This clearly shows their dishonesty via a double-standard. It also shows that PBS is partaking in an orchestrated campaign of their own - "scouring the blogs". Kind of funny, no? If they were not aware of The Art of NonWar's (cough) orchestrated campaign, the question then becomes why did they not investigate that issue but spend resources investigating Debunking 9/11 Debunking? This would also betray their true motivation, not obscure it.
I noticed that a 911blogger screensnap was used on their show. I hope they do read our posts. Maybe their more innocent staffers will have a crisis of conscience and, at least, start educating themselves.
>> We're not looking to censor other books, we're looking for fair treatment. <<
... and a huge thanks to Cincy911Truth for doing valuable research!
I would also think about thanking Bill Moyers for mentioning this on air,
but I don't want to get him in trouble ;-)
"If someone is in serious trouble and tries anything to help them, even though their chances of success are probably nil, they are 'clutching at straws.'"
Gee wiz, If THIS is where you see the movement as being, with our chances for success reduced to "nil," there's very little I might say, or "protest" about, that's gonna improve matters.
This is a high-stakes battle for the first draft, or maybe, the first re-write of history. A list of book titles on a PBS show isn't where a battle of any significance can be won, but it is an unwelcome and unnecessary loss. We can't waste our ammunition firing randomly at our own feet.
Who didn't see this one coming? It WAS orchestrated, and badly at that.
Among the selection of books that WERE highlighted, are perspectives as bold and honest as David Ray Griffin's. In other words, Debunking 911 Debunking would likely have made the cut were it not for the assortment of lamers, who having never before tuned in to Bill Moyers', were on this singular occasion spamming his site so as to get a leg up.
At the time, it was an embarrassing display of juvenile hubris, and even more so now.
Well, C L Tibball, we seem to be on a minority wave-length here... Tho, honestly, I've lost track of what's true or not true about the Moyers book list and any orchestrated efforts occurring or not, and by who and how and why and for what. In the end it's all of such minor import that it's difficult to know what to conclude about it. So I'll say this, and then I'm moving on:
David Ray Griffin is a living saint and there is not a single person on this site or in this movement who does not owe him a very large debt of gratitude not easily paid here or the hereafter.
Bill Moyers is a thoughtful, courageous and rather lone voice on PBS (btw: his show has a single corporate sponsor, an insurance company) and I get the sinking feeling that not many people here are familiar with who he is, or have ever watched his program — which among many good works, has devoted much time to substantive and enlightened discussion of impeaching both the president and vice president. I don't think that's happening elsewhere on PBS, or on any network.
If there was an orchestrated effort by any group to get any book muscled onto a list that Mr. Moyers invited his viewers to contribute to, that's simply bad behavior, and anyone who wants to defend such behavior enjoys a brand of ethics I don't share. Incidentally, I rather doubt Mr. Griffin would have approved.
Any large movement has by definition a broad constituency, and all the problems that go with that. The good news is that the 9/11 Movement IS a large movement. I'd like to see it cease being a movement and become common knowledge and the day's headlines. I want to hear testimony and the truth and live to see that justice prevails. In the meantime, I think we need to win more hearts and minds, and as we each try to do good for the movement we need to not harm the movement.
"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon
There are some that think any publicity is good publicity. This is not true when it comes to 911Truth. Parlor tricks like this one do more to hurt the cause and give the skeptics reason not to investigate further into the 911 story. Bill Moyers presents many real truths that the mainstream media won't touch. He is known to be credible. He may indeed be a gatekeeper, but as was mentioned in an earlier post, don't give them this kind of ammunition. And when they busted the effort, the response could have been something like, "We feel so strongly that the truth about 911 should be exposed to the public, that our zeal may have caused us to cross the line in our promotion of David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 911 Debunking. We mostly regret any damage this may have done to the effort of 911Truth. The movement is noble and just and doesn't need to use covert means because truth, science and logic are on our side. Debunking 911 Debunking is an important book by a brave and brilliant author. I think David Ray Griffin would be a fantastic guest on the Bill Moyers program. They are in many ways similar to each other. Both are intelligent, soft spoken and highly credible. Thank you for understanding that we made a mistake in an effort to reveal an important truth."
He was never going to be "allowed" to select this book and David Ray Griffin was never going to be a guest on his show. PBS is funded by the "machine". Its not Moyers rejecting the work.
Any publicity is good publicity . . . actually any publicity is the only publicity when it comes to 9/11 Truth.
I am one of those who believes this is the only course available to us.
Get angry, get in their faces. (no hitting, use your words)
Moyers is making an excuse for not listening to people that care enough to be informed, inform others and to vote. PBS is saying that no matter how many individuals vote, if the topic is 9/11, it won't be addressed fairly.
If it had not been for this 911truth.org video I wouldn't even be aware this happened. Thanks for the original post.
How about blaming (if that's the objective) total corporate control of television?
PBS: "Thanks to our corporate sponsors" ...and now an advertisement from Coca-Cola!
On the ground level nobody is wrong. Bill Moyers did what he had to do. We did what we had to do. Keep in mind that Moyers will be forgotten 10 years after he dies. PBS will be forgotten 10 years after its last broadcast. The 911 Truthers will be remembered either for what they achieve or what they fail to achieve for ever.
It is quite possible that Moyers could not even mention any 911 truth book outright,
but in a round about way drew a lot of publicity to Debunking 911 Debunking.
Controversy cloaked in controversy, conspiracy within conspiracy draws people in. Well, some people.
It appears from the new information provided that there is a double standard being applied. I guess I was a bit naive in thinking that the Truthers were the only ones orchestrating a campaign.
I stand corrected.
I do believe that PBS in general is a vehicle for establishment propaganda. I have, however, seen Moyers tackle some controversial topics taking positions which are quite unpopular with the establishment.
I've always enjoyed the work of Bill Moyers but this latest issue of banning the mention of Debunking 9/1 Debunking has really left a bad taste in my mouth regarding Bill Moyers. Maybe any publicity is GOOD publicity but there definitely was a double standard going one.
We, the 9/11 Truth Movement, are definitely having a strong impact! Let's keep the pressure on. My thanks to everyone for the work that you all are doing!
In this instance I totally agree with Moyers, and I believe that this open-call strategy was wrong. It was far too transparent. And I also think that the message in the YouTube video above is wildly misdirected; as someone who works in IT and monitors web-traffic constantly, the first thing that an administrator does is check redirects if anything looks suspicious. And in this case, it is highly suspicious that so many people would recommend such an obscure book.
Step one: Be honest in the message that you present. This was an orchestration --it was an organized campaign to recommend a book title that surely, as probability goes, not everyone who posted has read, but deals with a topic that everyone, in our opinion, should be informed about. This, to an educated persons mind, is much different than signing a petition or attending a rally; in situations like those it is presumed that the collective is the message, and that the greater number of individuals the stronger the message. It is also presumed that not everyone within the collective is as informed as everyone else, and that recognizing a general distribution of knowledge --independent of the signer, attendee or individual-- is essential in maintaining a collective, focused stance. In sum it's individual-independent, and that's precisely what makes it so powerful. ...But applying such tactics to book-recommendations and reading, an activity that is taken, essentially, alone? It gives off an air of partiality, of doctrainairism, of following orders, of orchestration --and further, of dishonesty. Especially, I repeat, when dealing, in mainstream terms, with such an obscure book.
This has absolutely nothing to do with secrecy. It has to do with recognizing context and presenting your argument in the most ethical manner possible. What I'm arguing is that this action was dishonest --transparently, embarrassingly dishonest-- and hence unethical. Think about it: as soon as someone shouts "spam" --or, in this case, multiple people-- you know the approach you're taking is inherently wrong.
suggested Debunking 9/11 Debunking should be a book the next president reads. Just because they may not have come up with that particular title on their own (out of millions of possible books) does not mean they haven't read it and don't agree that it certainly would be a very important book for ALL Americans (not just presidents) to read. If anyone is being dishonest, it is Bill "new rules" Moyers and his viewers that suggested books like Dr. Seuss. As wonderful as they are for children, how are they going to help our country?
It is unethical to call 250 people dishonest because they suggested Debunking 9/11 Debunking should be a book the next president reads. Just because they may not have come up with that particular title on their own (out of millions of possible books) does not mean they haven't read it and don't agree that it certainly would be a very important book for ALL Americans (not just presidents) to read.
To be clear, I am not calling anybody, individually, dishonest. I am saying that the strategy, as a call-to-action, was an unethical attempt to persuade an audience by suggesting that members of the truth-movement poll for something that they may or may not have read because the subject matter has been deemed collectively important by the truth-movement. Internally, within the group, this "importance" is well understood; outside of the group, however, as you and I and all of us know, this "importance" is generally misunderstood or completely ignored as wild speculation. Knowing what we know, and understanding the challenges that the truth-movement faces, do you think it was wise to bombard (or, from certain perspectives, "spam") an audience with a title that has barely been heard of within the main-stream press? by forcing suggestion --not suggestions-- on a generally well-educated and informed audience? The strategy, the action, immediately becomes but a tactic, and it has been called out as being what it is -- an unethical, orchestrated attempt to influence a wide range of people through honest or dishonest mobilization.
Hypothetically speaking, don't you think it would have been far more constructive to suggest that the readers of 911Blogger poll for their favorite 911 Truth book-title? the title that led them into the passionate activism that they now participate in? Wouldn't this seem, on the surface, as being a little more sincere? All question would have immediately disappeared, and the blog-readers --as well as Bill Moyers-- would have been far less likely to outright dismiss the action as mere fraudulence.
If anyone is being dishonest, it is Bill "new rules" Moyers and his viewers that suggested books like Dr. Seuss. As wonderful as they are for children, how are they going to help our country?
Wrong approach. We're trying to educate a great mass of people about the truth behind a crime where the sophistication in execution was only matched by the sophistication in covering it up. How can you begin to criticize those who you are trying to inform? We absolutely must be more intelligent in our approach.
Everyone should spend a few hours reading over George Washington's blog. His writing, motivation and big-picture understanding is priceless to any activist, 911-truther or not.
With what we're up against, we're never going to get anywhere by following Marquis of Queensbury rules. If nothing else, it forced Moyers, who has been so disgracefully silent on 9/11 Truth, to acknowledge - if only for a moment - an ever-growing body of people who are so frustrated and tired of having their grave concerns ignored that they'll resort to this tactic (and I saw nothing wrong with it). What's the alternative? Stay within the delineated boundaries like respectful little ladies and gentleman and be IGNORED. Moyers had a great reputation and I respected him, but now push has come to shove and it's time to see if there's any substance behind all his noble talk. I'm so sad to see him failing this test. Another giant with feet of clay.
I also hated his smirking "conspiracy" wisecrack. This is no joke.
I went to the recent Hillary Clinton rally at the Rio Grande Valley McAllen Convention Center and have VIDEO of my efforts to get a copy of "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" to Senator Clinton! I'm waiting on posting it because I couldn't get close enough to give it to her first hand. However, I have footage PROVING that I gave it to local RGV politician Aaron Pena, and he assured me that he would do his best to pass it on. I intend to call his office, like he said I should, this Monday to see if my copy got through. If not, I will do my very best to get it to Senator Clinton at her rally this upcoming Wednesday at UTPA. Keep in mind that in the video footage I already have (which is ALSO covered by Channel 5 News; more later) makes clear that I was holding both the Griffin book in question AND Phillip Shenon's "The Commission" high up in the air for everyone to see! And rest assured that not only the audience but EVERY local politician saw this event!!!
The combination of holding the book up for all to see and then documenting its delivery to politicians is great technique.
With Griffin's new book "9-11 Contradictions", we should really do this on video record to every single member of Congress and the media. That alone will be documentation of the problem of the 9-11 Commission cover-up and if we push it right could put some serious energy into forcing a real investigation from different fronts.
Griffin's "9-11 Contradictions" is addressed TO the Congress (and the major media). How could we get a copy to all or at least most members of the Congress?
and/Or maybe DRG or his publisher would be willing to donate 1000 books and we could do it as a media outreach and press conference with a press release. it would be good for all involved.
Can any informed person really believe that gatekeeper Moyers of Project Mockingbird-controlled PBS fame was going to list a 9/11 truth-themed book on air? It was never going to happen.
Luckily for the cause of gatekeeping, the eager beavers over at PBS did some websearching and lo, sitting there, was a blogger on a popular website calling for an organized campaign to get that very book.
Like Dana Carvey's Church Lady says: How convenient!
Gentle reader, there was no way in High Heaven or Holy Hell that Moyers was going to list that book. His handlers could've found a way to rig the vote count, or they could've dropped the whole idea of listing such a book on air in the first place. Or something else even cleverer. But no positive mention on air of the that book was ever going to happen.
Then why did Moyers mention the book the following week? It was a chance to make the complainers look bad, showing them as unfair, and implicitly reassuring the left-of-center sheeple who admire Moyers's warm-and-folksy exposition of the world that 9/11 truthers aren't the kind of people who deserve a hearing. Heck, they even pick on a warm 'n' folksy liberal intellectual like Bill Moyers: They couldn't be operating with a full deck.
Let's hear it again: Project Mockingbird.
Dig deep into those pockets of yours next time there's a PBS pledge-a-thon. Not.
Don't worry, the CIA black budget will reimburse PBS for those lost 9/11-truther dollars. Your tax money at work.
Come on... What you present is a yes or no situation-- it does nothing for activism, and it especially does nothing for 911-truth. It's a "we are change" approach, and I cant think of anything more damaging for the cause than utilizing such wide-ranging, essentially unverifiable fantasia; true or not, it's important to recognize those who may be inadvertently listening to what you say. "Black Ops", "Project Mockingbird", etc --- We need people on the streets with signs, banners, letters; people who believe in a democratic process; not people worrying about how stolen trillions are being used against mobilization.
The most important thing that this movement can do, what we have to do, is simplify.
If I understand you correctly, you object to my comments because they discourage people from taking the kind of actions you want them to. You fear that observations such as mine would, if widespread, paralyze the movement.
To the contrary, I'm outrageously optimistic about the potential success of 9/11 truth. But I also see that success being delayed by many years because of misconceptions about what's effective.
The MSM is being consciously directed to black out coverage of 9/11 truth (both the movement itself and substantive issues regarding the subject). The exception to this is the occasional carefully planned hit piece designed to make the 9/11 truth movement look silly. (Bear in mind, often low-level reporters, writers, and editors don't fully appreciate what lies behind these various directives, only that this subject is not to be treated by them. Their consciences, contrary to what some posting here imagine, are irrelevant, because the Project Mockingbird operatives in charge will never allow such material broadcast or into print.)
Knowing that, we can see where to put our energy: online, meetings, conferences, rallies, marches, literature distribution, small and university press publishers (note that no 9/11 truth books have ever been published by any of the big Manhattan publishers, even though DRG is a proven moneymaker), local ballot initiatives, asking questions at public forums, alternative radio, etc. Even the Debunking 9/11 Debunking thing may've been helpful insofar as the relatively small but largely intelligent people reading Moyers's website will have seen about it.
If you don't believe me, please tell me where in the English-language world during the past five years the MSM has ever given significant neutral-to-positive coverage of 9/11 truth. If there are even some marginal cases, I'm betting they can easily be counted on the fingers of one hand.
In other words, the MSM doesn't cover 9/11 truth, and nothing we do will ever change that. (Until we've finally won, at which point it won't matter anymore.) Just think how much our movement could've accomplished if all the time and energy that's been futilely directed toward getting helpful MSM coverage had gone toward things that really do help. Sad, but true. A lot of 9/11 truthers would do well to face facts and get on with the slow business of building a grassroots 9/11 truth movement.
Now some very good news:
The continuing growth of digital technologies makes it ever easier to network together and to reach a larger public liberated from MSM gatekeeping. Ever more people are making use of the digital technologies, and ever more of those are becoming ever more adept at their uses. The consumption of MSM has been relentlessly declining throughout all this, and the subsidization of the old MSM by the CIA's black budget can only stave off the collapse of the MSM for a few years.
Also, contrary to what you suggest, I'm not particularly concerned about the CIA and Mossad listening in on or otherwise monitoring us. I never said any such thing. I was discussing CIA control of the MSM. Are you projecting onto me your own fears?
You use the phrase "Black Ops" like I'm paranoid. How odd, since I wasn't even alluding to "Black Ops" having anything to do with the Moyers incident. "Project Mockingbird" is the CIA's MSM disinformation program. The funny thing about your attitude is that 9/11 itself was a black operation, and the fact that you recognize this (if only intuitively) is what accounts for you being here, participating in this discussion in the first place. Obviously you believe in black ops -- that's why you want the truth about 9/11 exposed.
Perhaps you're confusing black ops with black budget. The black budget is that $40 billion/year discretionary budgeting the CIA has, which, for "national security" reasons, it doesn't have to break down for the public, or even for Congressional oversight committees. Yes, it's discouraging, but only before one realizes that it's through no fault of the 9/11 truth movement that the MSM won't cover the anomalies of the official accounts of 9/11.
For their failure to understand Project Mockingbird, some 9/11 truthers have developed a sort of collective guilt complex about the media's 9/11 truth blackout. (damassi: "black" means something different each time here. Not all "blacks" are the same.) If only we were more polite, if only we were more rude, if only we were better dressed, whatever, the MSM would start giving us the respect our cause deserves.
Forget that: the MSM is itself has been shaped very effectively into an arm of the whole 9/11 operation. If you were trying to plot an escape from a prison, your strategy shouldn't be to do so by seeking to become buds with the warden. Instead you'd seek a way to make an end run around the warden and his underlings.
The MSM is not our friend, and can never be our friend, because it works for the perpetrators of 9/11, and, as a character said in the movie American Gigolo, "the other side will always pay more."
The orchestrated campaign that Bill Moyers should address is the one that suppresses 9/1 truth literature, especially the output of DRG, in the mainstream media. That theme would make for a very fine Moyers program, which he could have put on at any time over the last several years but did not.
If for some reason Moyers contradicted orders not to cover 9/11 truth by having Griffin on as a guest interviewee, then PBS simply wouldn't've aired the show. And Moyers would be permanently out of work in the MSM.
Yes, it would be lovely to have Griffin on Moyers. It would be lovely to have a profile of Steven Jones on NOVA. It would be lovely to have a roundtable about 9/11 truth on The Charlie Rose Show.
And it would be lovely if some anonymous benefactor mailed each of us a box with a million dollars in unmarked $20 bills. The chance of any of those happening is about the same.
WELL ACTUALLY
Well actually it WAS an organised/orchestrated campaign.
That's why i signed.
But we did get our mention.
And I think we should continue to petition Moyers to host David Ray Griffin on his program.
I'm still very distressed that Moyers is a member of the CFR and Bilderberg Group.
Maybe we should also ask him to explain the following quote:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march toward a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller
Council on Foreign Relations
BOTTOM LINE!
Did sales of "Debunking 911 Debunking" increase?
Myshkin, doth protesteth too much, me thinks.
First of all, let's take a look at Bill Moyers initial invitation for readers to submit book suggestions.
===========
FROM BILL MOYERS WEBSITE:
Power Reading
On the CBS EVENING NEWS, Katie Couric asks candidates from both parties which book, other than the Bible, they would bring with them to the White House and posits:
"It's true you can't judge a book by its cover, but you can tell a lot about a person by what he or she reads."
Find out what the candidates said on the CBS NEWS Web site.
What do you think?
Do you agree that you can tell a lot about a person from what he or she reads?
Were you surprised by what the candidates picked?
What one book do you want your next president to read?
***Be sure to watch BILL MOYERS JOURNAL next week, when Bill suggests the book he'd like the next President to read (if he can pick just one).***
Greetings to all. This is Bill Moyers, and I want you to know I read every offering this evening. I wish that I could answer all of them because each one of you has made an interesting suggestion for a book. We'll give air time to a few next Friday night and put out a press release with a list of all the books recommended. I appreciate very much your taking the invitation seriously.
Bill Moyers
LINK: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2008/01/power_reading.html
=======================================
Now let's take a look at Bill Moyers followup 'suggested reading list'.
FROM BILL MOYERS WEBSITE:
Bill Moyers' Reading Recommendation
Last week, Bill Moyers asked viewers what book, other than the Bible, they recommend the next President bring to the White House. In the clip below, he reviews many of your submissions and reveals his own pick for the future President-elect.
We invite you to continue sharing your thoughts on Moyers' and others' recommendations and submitting your own suggestions for Presidential reading.
(Please note that due to your overwhelming response our "complete list" keeps growing and growing. We invite you to view our books feature, complete with slideshow of popular suggestions and video of authors, as well as, peruse all the suggestions on the blog.)
Here are the current top titles.
Naomi Klein, THE SHOCK DOCTRINE
Howard Zinn, A PEOPLE’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
Kim Michaels, THE ART OF NON-WAR
LINK: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2008/02/bill_moyers_reading_recom...
==================================
Did you notice that I only listed the top 3 books? So how did the book 'THE ART OF NON-WAR' make it to number 3?
Check out what author Kim Michaels posted on his/her website:
==========================================
Do you want to help promote our books?
If so, here is a free opportunity. On the American Public Television Website, host Bill Moyers is asking viewers to recommend the one book that the next president of the United States should take to the White House. If you feel so inclined, please recommend The Art of Non-war.
Go to this page to post a recommendation (you have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to post an entry.)
Thank you,
Kim
LINK: http://www.askrealjesus.com/A_WHAT'S_NEW.html
============================================
So it appears that the orchestrated campaign to promote Kim Michaels THE ART OF NON-WAR was legitimate according to Bill Moyers Journal, BUT... the 'orchestrated campaign' to promote David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking' was not?
Face it people. PBS doesn't want to touch 9/11 Truth!
www.Cincinnati911Truth.org
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
Ok, let's look at this
Well, I sure didn't know about the campaign to promote "The Art of Non-War", and given the deafening silence that's greeted my numerous attempts to urge the PBS Ombudsman to cover the Sibel Edmond's case, and the 9/11 Truth Movement, I'm not in any humor to cut them much slack. So I take your point and appreciate the information.
Still, an argument that boils down to, "Well, they did it, so why shouldn't we?" isn't exactly terra firma beneath our feet. Bill Moyers' Journal proves itself time and again to be a tiny island of sanity and fearless commentary in a vast, toxic, shark-infested, and horizon-less sea of drek.
If the show requested individuals and not tag-team collectives with agendas to offer suggestions, then those were the rules.
Do you have any idea if the Moyers people know about this Art of Non-War business? I'm willing at this point to give Moyers the benefit of the doubt, and if it's pointed out to him, he might have to remove it; he's certain to see in any case, the weakness of people to simply act individually now and again.
My "anger" (as someone else here suggests) can't possibly hurt the 9/11 Movement, and to think so is to greatly underestimate the power, purpose and breadth of the movement. That's just silly.
But it's like this: the movement has got to grow and mature and change if it's gonna survive and succeed at advancing its message. Governments kill their people all the time, and history was not devoid of despicable acts of craven self-interest before 2001.
I was looking at a copy of "The Commission" in a bookstore the other day and turning to the bibliography I was rather startled NOT to see the books of D. R. Griffin listed there. Now it's a fine thing for a reporter from the NYT to find a story that's been under his nose for over 7 years, as well as publisher willing to expose the Zelikow influence on the commission... and more power to anyone who can break old stories for unconscious readers. But time is precious and it's running out. Everything in our current world really is at stake, but history tells us just how little RAM it sets aside for preserving "truth".
I'm not "angry" with the movement, I'm terribly frustrated by the silly slip-ups it can't afford to make, and by its death-like grip on provocation as a strategy; with assertive slogans that do little more than polarize a citizenry that should by now have a far greater familiarity the whitewash of the 9/11 commission report, a basic grasp of Newtonian physics, and a sense of curiosity if not outrage about not knowing what did and/or didn't happen on 9/11.
We will forever find ourselves whistling by a graveyard if we cannot coalesce around a formula for raising our voices in a harmonic tune that catches people's ears. It's no longer about producing evidence, it's about having a voice that anyone wants to listen to... one that can't afford a kind of grabass agitprop that only alienates those we must educate.
Anarchist history is written in the blood of those who lost, not those who won... and it's little read these days.
"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon
I agree we need new memes
But we need to project what we know as well as not use the "inside job" meme to turn people away. I am guilty of over-using the "inside job" phrase and the more I think about it, the more I feel that it is accurate, but lacks the gravitas and beckoning intention that we so need to communicate right now. I said before that " inside job" feels like a second rate bank robbery in some second rate crime novel. Meanwhile, we are talking about mass murder, mass treason and mass psychological trauma.
We can't back away from what we know to be true. Many people will appreciate our knowledge if we put it forth, not as an inside understanding, but as a public call for justice. Folks will appreciate our willingness to speak with clarity as long as we don't feel like a cult with stale memes.
I think we need to say more than "investigate 9-11."
Myshkin, I appreciate your discomfort and anger, and I wouldn't shy away from a healthy sense of anger or at least indignation, as potentially catalytic. This movement has some problems with healthy self-critique and transformation, partially because we have been so ridiculed and ostracized that there are deep defensive mechanisms at work. And now is the time to move forward quickly , shed skin and put forward our deepest, clearest and most engaging messages.
I think we should hone in on the idea that the cover-up itself, no matter what it hides, is ongoing treason and cruelty to the family members.
"The 9-11 cover-up is treason." We need to articulate this as a fact, because it is one. This type of message is strong enough to clarify the morality and legal-nature of the situation and express the gravity of the moment while not getting stuck in debating a specific scenario for the conspiracy itself.
Some must continue onwards with articulating the make-up of the 9-11 conspiracy itself and begin pointing figures toawrds likely suspects so we can get the people and any politicians or media folk with some type of conscience or sense of self-preservation left to feel that much of the work is done and dealing with it won't damage them, unless they decide to continue to side with the treasonous cover-up.
Asking ourselves: "What do we want to see happen?"
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree with so much of what you say, most especially with your observation that "the movement has some problems with healthy self-critique and transformation..." Your diagnosis sounds fair enough, but more importantly I agree about moving forward quickly, shedding skin, and so forth.
On the matter of slogans, I said my piece (and maybe rather more) several days ago in a comment at a news post titled, "In The Face Of John McCain And 9/11 Truth," elsewhere on this site.
In brief, I feel that the movement would do well to move away from "protest" which I think has attracted as many people as it is going to, and that's given us the opportunity, much needed, to express our outrage. Not to've done so would've been impossible. There is much to be very angry about. Someone here has said that my "anger" has, "hurt the movement," which is a bit preposterous. What happened on 9/11, and the policies that 9/11 has been used to promulgate have resulted in an anger that is almost boundless, is unquestionably righteous, and gave birth to this movement itself.
At this point, and to my way of thinking, any door that can be opened that allows for the greatest number of people to pass through and join us in calling for a new and independent investigation, is the door we must put our shoulders to. I'm suggesting that the assertion of 9/11 being an inside job is NOT that great door. It is not the door that encourages the most people into this movement. We cannot sustain a movement that clings to a sense of being beset by enemies and opposition; we must have a movement that is prepared to give way to a general consensus. That consensus must be our goal, for only such a consensus can prevail, can achieve the process by which the truth is sought and revealed.
What so many of us have researched for so long and drawn conclusions about must be leveraged with skill, not protest, to encourage our moms and our cousins and the guy at the corner grocery store to want to know what happened because they now know they were lied to. They don't need to become experts of all the very complex evidence, they need only know they were lied to, and grasping the significance of that, they will demand to know the truth. That great demand will not be silenced, and it cannot be marginalized.
That's what I would like to see happen. I'd like to see Americans in great numbers simply "getting it" that they were lied to. The rest will follow... as night the day.
"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon
That is a mis-diagnosis
"Still, an argument that boils down to, "Well, they did it, so why shouldn't we?" isn't exactly terra firma beneath our feet. " - You're offering a strawman argument here, assuming a juvenile perspective on the part of the truth movement. Keep this up & your credibility will suffer.
The argument, as I interpret it, is...
If other books are not held to the 'orchestrated campaign' standard then why is Debunking 9/11 Debunking subject to that standard?
The answer to the above question is that PBS actively went looking (by their own admission) for some reason to reject votes for David Griffin's book while at the same time overlooking their own reasoning if it applied to something they 'like'.
This clearly shows their dishonesty via a double-standard. It also shows that PBS is partaking in an orchestrated campaign of their own - "scouring the blogs". Kind of funny, no? If they were not aware of The Art of NonWar's (cough) orchestrated campaign, the question then becomes why did they not investigate that issue but spend resources investigating Debunking 9/11 Debunking? This would also betray their true motivation, not obscure it.
I noticed that a 911blogger screensnap was used on their show. I hope they do read our posts. Maybe their more innocent staffers will have a crisis of conscience and, at least, start educating themselves.
>> We're not looking to censor other books, we're looking for fair treatment. <<
... and a huge thanks to Cincy911Truth for doing valuable research!
I would also think about thanking Bill Moyers for mentioning this on air,
but I don't want to get him in trouble ;-)
"the lie is different at every level"
Myshkin, your anger hurts our movement.
.
Grab
every straw (that is left)
Definition
"If someone is in serious trouble and tries anything to help them, even though their chances of success are probably nil, they are 'clutching at straws.'"
Gee wiz, If THIS is where you see the movement as being, with our chances for success reduced to "nil," there's very little I might say, or "protest" about, that's gonna improve matters.
This is a high-stakes battle for the first draft, or maybe, the first re-write of history. A list of book titles on a PBS show isn't where a battle of any significance can be won, but it is an unwelcome and unnecessary loss. We can't waste our ammunition firing randomly at our own feet.
Right On
Myshkin, you said it perfectly.
Why can't you Truther folks pick something like Dr. Suess or
Charles Dickens? Why do you have to make me and my staff so uncomfortable? Okay, my assistant tells me I need to take my nap now...
But moving on...
Well, C L Tibball, we seem to be on a minority wave-length here... Tho, honestly, I've lost track of what's true or not true about the Moyers book list and any orchestrated efforts occurring or not, and by who and how and why and for what. In the end it's all of such minor import that it's difficult to know what to conclude about it. So I'll say this, and then I'm moving on:
David Ray Griffin is a living saint and there is not a single person on this site or in this movement who does not owe him a very large debt of gratitude not easily paid here or the hereafter.
Bill Moyers is a thoughtful, courageous and rather lone voice on PBS (btw: his show has a single corporate sponsor, an insurance company) and I get the sinking feeling that not many people here are familiar with who he is, or have ever watched his program — which among many good works, has devoted much time to substantive and enlightened discussion of impeaching both the president and vice president. I don't think that's happening elsewhere on PBS, or on any network.
If there was an orchestrated effort by any group to get any book muscled onto a list that Mr. Moyers invited his viewers to contribute to, that's simply bad behavior, and anyone who wants to defend such behavior enjoys a brand of ethics I don't share. Incidentally, I rather doubt Mr. Griffin would have approved.
Any large movement has by definition a broad constituency, and all the problems that go with that. The good news is that the 9/11 Movement IS a large movement. I'd like to see it cease being a movement and become common knowledge and the day's headlines. I want to hear testimony and the truth and live to see that justice prevails. In the meantime, I think we need to win more hearts and minds, and as we each try to do good for the movement we need to not harm the movement.
"The innocence of the creatures is in inverse proportion to the immorality of the Master." Thomas Pynchon
moyers is credible and his allegations are correct on this one
There are some that think any publicity is good publicity. This is not true when it comes to 911Truth. Parlor tricks like this one do more to hurt the cause and give the skeptics reason not to investigate further into the 911 story. Bill Moyers presents many real truths that the mainstream media won't touch. He is known to be credible. He may indeed be a gatekeeper, but as was mentioned in an earlier post, don't give them this kind of ammunition. And when they busted the effort, the response could have been something like, "We feel so strongly that the truth about 911 should be exposed to the public, that our zeal may have caused us to cross the line in our promotion of David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 911 Debunking. We mostly regret any damage this may have done to the effort of 911Truth. The movement is noble and just and doesn't need to use covert means because truth, science and logic are on our side. Debunking 911 Debunking is an important book by a brave and brilliant author. I think David Ray Griffin would be a fantastic guest on the Bill Moyers program. They are in many ways similar to each other. Both are intelligent, soft spoken and highly credible. Thank you for understanding that we made a mistake in an effort to reveal an important truth."
No, now we have a video with Moyers, the book and this site
He was never going to be "allowed" to select this book and David Ray Griffin was never going to be a guest on his show. PBS is funded by the "machine". Its not Moyers rejecting the work.
Any publicity is good publicity . . . actually any publicity is the only publicity when it comes to 9/11 Truth.
I am one of those who believes this is the only course available to us.
Get angry, get in their faces. (no hitting, use your words)
Peace
re:comments - Wow, so we're supposed to blame activists?
Moyers is making an excuse for not listening to people that care enough to be informed, inform others and to vote. PBS is saying that no matter how many individuals vote, if the topic is 9/11, it won't be addressed fairly.
If it had not been for this 911truth.org video I wouldn't even be aware this happened. Thanks for the original post.
How about blaming (if that's the objective) total corporate control of television?
PBS: "Thanks to our corporate sponsors" ...and now an advertisement from Coca-Cola!
nobody is wrong
On the ground level nobody is wrong. Bill Moyers did what he had to do. We did what we had to do. Keep in mind that Moyers will be forgotten 10 years after he dies. PBS will be forgotten 10 years after its last broadcast. The 911 Truthers will be remembered either for what they achieve or what they fail to achieve for ever.
Yes
!
On the Other Hand...
It is quite possible that Moyers could not even mention any 911 truth book outright,
but in a round about way drew a lot of publicity to Debunking 911 Debunking.
Controversy cloaked in controversy, conspiracy within conspiracy draws people in. Well, some people.
Devil's Advocate
cincinatti truth comment sheds new light
It appears from the new information provided that there is a double standard being applied. I guess I was a bit naive in thinking that the Truthers were the only ones orchestrating a campaign.
I stand corrected.
I do believe that PBS in general is a vehicle for establishment propaganda. I have, however, seen Moyers tackle some controversial topics taking positions which are quite unpopular with the establishment.
ROBinDallas
Is that you my friend? from the Meetup group?
Bill Moyers has done some great work
I've always enjoyed the work of Bill Moyers but this latest issue of banning the mention of Debunking 9/1 Debunking has really left a bad taste in my mouth regarding Bill Moyers. Maybe any publicity is GOOD publicity but there definitely was a double standard going one.
We, the 9/11 Truth Movement, are definitely having a strong impact! Let's keep the pressure on. My thanks to everyone for the work that you all are doing!
www.Cincinnati911Truth.org
"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves" – Edward R. Murrow
Hey Joe
Yes, It's me. I love this website. There is always something fresh and pertinent about our cause.
I put my sign up today at the corner of Caruth and NW Highway. Man that feels good.
"far too transparent"? In case you haven't heard, transparency
the #1 goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If we play by their rules (secrecy), we are never going to win.
Misunderstood
This has absolutely nothing to do with secrecy. It has to do with recognizing context and presenting your argument in the most ethical manner possible. What I'm arguing is that this action was dishonest --transparently, embarrassingly dishonest-- and hence unethical. Think about it: as soon as someone shouts "spam" --or, in this case, multiple people-- you know the approach you're taking is inherently wrong.
It is unethical to call 250 people dishonest because they
suggested Debunking 9/11 Debunking should be a book the next president reads. Just because they may not have come up with that particular title on their own (out of millions of possible books) does not mean they haven't read it and don't agree that it certainly would be a very important book for ALL Americans (not just presidents) to read. If anyone is being dishonest, it is Bill "new rules" Moyers and his viewers that suggested books like Dr. Seuss. As wonderful as they are for children, how are they going to help our country?
Point by Point
It is unethical to call 250 people dishonest because they suggested Debunking 9/11 Debunking should be a book the next president reads. Just because they may not have come up with that particular title on their own (out of millions of possible books) does not mean they haven't read it and don't agree that it certainly would be a very important book for ALL Americans (not just presidents) to read.
To be clear, I am not calling anybody, individually, dishonest. I am saying that the strategy, as a call-to-action, was an unethical attempt to persuade an audience by suggesting that members of the truth-movement poll for something that they may or may not have read because the subject matter has been deemed collectively important by the truth-movement. Internally, within the group, this "importance" is well understood; outside of the group, however, as you and I and all of us know, this "importance" is generally misunderstood or completely ignored as wild speculation. Knowing what we know, and understanding the challenges that the truth-movement faces, do you think it was wise to bombard (or, from certain perspectives, "spam") an audience with a title that has barely been heard of within the main-stream press? by forcing suggestion --not suggestions-- on a generally well-educated and informed audience? The strategy, the action, immediately becomes but a tactic, and it has been called out as being what it is -- an unethical, orchestrated attempt to influence a wide range of people through honest or dishonest mobilization.
Hypothetically speaking, don't you think it would have been far more constructive to suggest that the readers of 911Blogger poll for their favorite 911 Truth book-title? the title that led them into the passionate activism that they now participate in? Wouldn't this seem, on the surface, as being a little more sincere? All question would have immediately disappeared, and the blog-readers --as well as Bill Moyers-- would have been far less likely to outright dismiss the action as mere fraudulence.
If anyone is being dishonest, it is Bill "new rules" Moyers and his viewers that suggested books like Dr. Seuss. As wonderful as they are for children, how are they going to help our country?
Wrong approach. We're trying to educate a great mass of people about the truth behind a crime where the sophistication in execution was only matched by the sophistication in covering it up. How can you begin to criticize those who you are trying to inform? We absolutely must be more intelligent in our approach.
Everyone should spend a few hours reading over George Washington's blog. His writing, motivation and big-picture understanding is priceless to any activist, 911-truther or not.
How's that tin foil hat Bill
How's that tin foil hat Bill Moyers? He needs some medication for that paranoia.
I think it was worth doing
With what we're up against, we're never going to get anywhere by following Marquis of Queensbury rules. If nothing else, it forced Moyers, who has been so disgracefully silent on 9/11 Truth, to acknowledge - if only for a moment - an ever-growing body of people who are so frustrated and tired of having their grave concerns ignored that they'll resort to this tactic (and I saw nothing wrong with it). What's the alternative? Stay within the delineated boundaries like respectful little ladies and gentleman and be IGNORED. Moyers had a great reputation and I respected him, but now push has come to shove and it's time to see if there's any substance behind all his noble talk. I'm so sad to see him failing this test. Another giant with feet of clay.
I also hated his smirking "conspiracy" wisecrack. This is no joke.
Guys, check this out!
I went to the recent Hillary Clinton rally at the Rio Grande Valley McAllen Convention Center and have VIDEO of my efforts to get a copy of "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" to Senator Clinton! I'm waiting on posting it because I couldn't get close enough to give it to her first hand. However, I have footage PROVING that I gave it to local RGV politician Aaron Pena, and he assured me that he would do his best to pass it on. I intend to call his office, like he said I should, this Monday to see if my copy got through. If not, I will do my very best to get it to Senator Clinton at her rally this upcoming Wednesday at UTPA. Keep in mind that in the video footage I already have (which is ALSO covered by Channel 5 News; more later) makes clear that I was holding both the Griffin book in question AND Phillip Shenon's "The Commission" high up in the air for everyone to see! And rest assured that not only the audience but EVERY local politician saw this event!!!
More soon after this Wednesday!!!
9/11 truth ENDS WAR!!!
Great work Mekt!
The combination of holding the book up for all to see and then documenting its delivery to politicians is great technique.
With Griffin's new book "9-11 Contradictions", we should really do this on video record to every single member of Congress and the media. That alone will be documentation of the problem of the 9-11 Commission cover-up and if we push it right could put some serious energy into forcing a real investigation from different fronts.
Getting the book read by those concerned
Griffin's "9-11 Contradictions" is addressed TO the Congress (and the major media). How could we get a copy to all or at least most members of the Congress?
Maybe we could raise the funds
and/Or maybe DRG or his publisher would be willing to donate 1000 books and we could do it as a media outreach and press conference with a press release. it would be good for all involved.
Oh, and did I mention Project Mockingbird?
Project Mockingbird.
Can any informed person really believe that gatekeeper Moyers of Project Mockingbird-controlled PBS fame was going to list a 9/11 truth-themed book on air? It was never going to happen.
Luckily for the cause of gatekeeping, the eager beavers over at PBS did some websearching and lo, sitting there, was a blogger on a popular website calling for an organized campaign to get that very book.
Like Dana Carvey's Church Lady says: How convenient!
Gentle reader, there was no way in High Heaven or Holy Hell that Moyers was going to list that book. His handlers could've found a way to rig the vote count, or they could've dropped the whole idea of listing such a book on air in the first place. Or something else even cleverer. But no positive mention on air of the that book was ever going to happen.
Then why did Moyers mention the book the following week? It was a chance to make the complainers look bad, showing them as unfair, and implicitly reassuring the left-of-center sheeple who admire Moyers's warm-and-folksy exposition of the world that 9/11 truthers aren't the kind of people who deserve a hearing. Heck, they even pick on a warm 'n' folksy liberal intellectual like Bill Moyers: They couldn't be operating with a full deck.
Let's hear it again: Project Mockingbird.
Dig deep into those pockets of yours next time there's a PBS pledge-a-thon. Not.
Don't worry, the CIA black budget will reimburse PBS for those lost 9/11-truther dollars. Your tax money at work.
?
Come on... What you present is a yes or no situation-- it does nothing for activism, and it especially does nothing for 911-truth. It's a "we are change" approach, and I cant think of anything more damaging for the cause than utilizing such wide-ranging, essentially unverifiable fantasia; true or not, it's important to recognize those who may be inadvertently listening to what you say. "Black Ops", "Project Mockingbird", etc --- We need people on the streets with signs, banners, letters; people who believe in a democratic process; not people worrying about how stolen trillions are being used against mobilization.
The most important thing that this movement can do, what we have to do, is simplify.
To simplify, you have to find out what works
If I understand you correctly, you object to my comments because they discourage people from taking the kind of actions you want them to. You fear that observations such as mine would, if widespread, paralyze the movement.
To the contrary, I'm outrageously optimistic about the potential success of 9/11 truth. But I also see that success being delayed by many years because of misconceptions about what's effective.
The MSM is being consciously directed to black out coverage of 9/11 truth (both the movement itself and substantive issues regarding the subject). The exception to this is the occasional carefully planned hit piece designed to make the 9/11 truth movement look silly. (Bear in mind, often low-level reporters, writers, and editors don't fully appreciate what lies behind these various directives, only that this subject is not to be treated by them. Their consciences, contrary to what some posting here imagine, are irrelevant, because the Project Mockingbird operatives in charge will never allow such material broadcast or into print.)
Knowing that, we can see where to put our energy: online, meetings, conferences, rallies, marches, literature distribution, small and university press publishers (note that no 9/11 truth books have ever been published by any of the big Manhattan publishers, even though DRG is a proven moneymaker), local ballot initiatives, asking questions at public forums, alternative radio, etc. Even the Debunking 9/11 Debunking thing may've been helpful insofar as the relatively small but largely intelligent people reading Moyers's website will have seen about it.
If you don't believe me, please tell me where in the English-language world during the past five years the MSM has ever given significant neutral-to-positive coverage of 9/11 truth. If there are even some marginal cases, I'm betting they can easily be counted on the fingers of one hand.
In other words, the MSM doesn't cover 9/11 truth, and nothing we do will ever change that. (Until we've finally won, at which point it won't matter anymore.) Just think how much our movement could've accomplished if all the time and energy that's been futilely directed toward getting helpful MSM coverage had gone toward things that really do help. Sad, but true. A lot of 9/11 truthers would do well to face facts and get on with the slow business of building a grassroots 9/11 truth movement.
Now some very good news:
The continuing growth of digital technologies makes it ever easier to network together and to reach a larger public liberated from MSM gatekeeping. Ever more people are making use of the digital technologies, and ever more of those are becoming ever more adept at their uses. The consumption of MSM has been relentlessly declining throughout all this, and the subsidization of the old MSM by the CIA's black budget can only stave off the collapse of the MSM for a few years.
Also, contrary to what you suggest, I'm not particularly concerned about the CIA and Mossad listening in on or otherwise monitoring us. I never said any such thing. I was discussing CIA control of the MSM. Are you projecting onto me your own fears?
You use the phrase "Black Ops" like I'm paranoid. How odd, since I wasn't even alluding to "Black Ops" having anything to do with the Moyers incident. "Project Mockingbird" is the CIA's MSM disinformation program. The funny thing about your attitude is that 9/11 itself was a black operation, and the fact that you recognize this (if only intuitively) is what accounts for you being here, participating in this discussion in the first place. Obviously you believe in black ops -- that's why you want the truth about 9/11 exposed.
Perhaps you're confusing black ops with black budget. The black budget is that $40 billion/year discretionary budgeting the CIA has, which, for "national security" reasons, it doesn't have to break down for the public, or even for Congressional oversight committees. Yes, it's discouraging, but only before one realizes that it's through no fault of the 9/11 truth movement that the MSM won't cover the anomalies of the official accounts of 9/11.
For their failure to understand Project Mockingbird, some 9/11 truthers have developed a sort of collective guilt complex about the media's 9/11 truth blackout. (damassi: "black" means something different each time here. Not all "blacks" are the same.) If only we were more polite, if only we were more rude, if only we were better dressed, whatever, the MSM would start giving us the respect our cause deserves.
Forget that: the MSM is itself has been shaped very effectively into an arm of the whole 9/11 operation. If you were trying to plot an escape from a prison, your strategy shouldn't be to do so by seeking to become buds with the warden. Instead you'd seek a way to make an end run around the warden and his underlings.
The MSM is not our friend, and can never be our friend, because it works for the perpetrators of 9/11, and, as a character said in the movie American Gigolo, "the other side will always pay more."
Answering Moyers
The orchestrated campaign that Bill Moyers should address is the one that suppresses 9/1 truth literature, especially the output of DRG, in the mainstream media. That theme would make for a very fine Moyers program, which he could have put on at any time over the last several years but did not.
Repeat after me: Project Mockingbird
If for some reason Moyers contradicted orders not to cover 9/11 truth by having Griffin on as a guest interviewee, then PBS simply wouldn't've aired the show. And Moyers would be permanently out of work in the MSM.
Yes, it would be lovely to have Griffin on Moyers. It would be lovely to have a profile of Steven Jones on NOVA. It would be lovely to have a roundtable about 9/11 truth on The Charlie Rose Show.
And it would be lovely if some anonymous benefactor mailed each of us a box with a million dollars in unmarked $20 bills. The chance of any of those happening is about the same.
One more time: Project Mockingbird.