This is easily the most important develpment for 9/11 truth thus far... at least since the prospect of getting a theater release of LCFC, which didn't happen.

Who here doesn't want to see this on the Ballot? Who doesn't want to see a new investigation into 9/11 with subeona power and including family members and researchers? Identify yourselves.

Thanks DRG.

I fully support the NY 911 Ballot Initiative, but why would I want to give money when Les Jamieson is in charge of the money?

This is a serious question, and I would love to have an answer. Why Les Jamieson? Lots of people do not trust him, and I would love to hear the other side. Let's have out with it.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA

Robin Hordon says on his website http://www.911civilinfo.blogspot.com/ :

====================
There is much more to be gained by changing the black-anarchistic leaning clothing, the screaming at "sheeple", the standard signs and worn out mantras of: "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" and "REINVESTIGATE 9/11" with: "9/11 WAS ANOTHER FALSE FLAG ATTACK"...and take the softer presence and more open respectful conversations from there. This change will build bridges to the people of peace that have not been compromised by the leadership of the peace movements, and it will create a very important and positive discussion, and hopefully, some education with and amongst the USofA's populace.
====================

Bravo, Mr. Hordon! I've talked to family and friends about 911, but at the end of the discussion, the typical answer is that "I don't believe that the government would kill it's own citizens." In other words, not a rational refutation of the facts, but essentially a subjective answer, based on an ingrained world view.

For me, however, having listened to investigative reporter Gary Null for over 25 years, I was only too aware how, ON THE CONTRARY, various agencies of the US government will, indeed, either allow US citizens to be killed, damaged, or experimented on (without their knowledge and consent). And those citizens can even include a sitting US President. Gary Null has done a multi-part, 1 hour radio show series on the JFK assassination, concerning which he agrees that "there is enough evidence, you could drive a truck through it". Furthermore, almost invariably, NOBODY ever gets punished or reprimanded (save the occasional patsy). Hence, once I was exposed to evidence that 911 was at least LIHOP, and that a 911 coverup was going on, I had no psychological barrier to accepting this.

However, American citizens brought up on mainstream media and 'standard textbook' pap have no such psychological predisposition.

So, you are quite right that taking an antagonistic attitude, or even a mildly confrontational one, will not only run headlong into people's conditioned worldview - it's also likely to make many people view the 911 Truth activists as crazy. I like your suggestions regarding colors, a softer presence, properly contextualizing 911 with other false flag operations, etc., but I will add one or two more, plus some criticism.

First suggestion: Use hooks that ask informative questions, rather than make provocative statements. Rather than signs that say "911 was an inside job" (which can cause deep fears, largely unconscious in some, and create the afore-mentioned "you're crazy!" reaction in others), why not have signs that say "Which congressman quit the 911 commission, declaring it a whitewash?" on one side, and the answer "Max Cleland", on the other? The point is to appeal to the more rational side of the human mind, while also allowing an important meme to slip in that would not otherwise be there.

Second suggestion: Go after young people, in high school and college. Really, this should be a goal of any activist group. Young people have more time, due to fewer commitments, and more energy. Frankly, young people are so pacified, as a whole, that this is not as easy as it would have been 40 years ago and, indeed, I assume during most of modern history. (I attended a pre-Iraq invasion discussion at Princeton University, with most speakers challenging the rightness of it, and there were practically no students present! In fact, most people were 40 years old and up, a fact that was noted by somebody in the audience.) Nevertheless, as trite as it sounds, "young people are the future", and however dumbed down they may be due to excess video games, Ritalin, bad nutrition, dysfunctional families, degenerate culture, lack of education in civics and real history, etc., etc., I don't see how we can realistically make large, relatively quick changes to society without them.

Criticism: What is the end-game? The end-game has to be a responsible government which doesn't commit monstrous deeds against either its own citizens or foreigners. What many activist actions, in the end, aim to do is to beg the current gatekeepers of power - Congressmen and other government officials on the one hand, the media on the other. Other rely on 'raising consciousness', and just hoping that with a more enlightened citizenry, everything "will come out in the wash". However, as Ralph Nader has told us, the "center of government" is continually being tugged at by corporate and other interests. In my view, most of the single issue activist efforts fail, if they can't deliver the votes based on that one issue, alone, and if opposing the public interest is a private one, which knows how to spread campaign cash around. Similarly, the media is privately owned, and serves it's true masters quite well, thank-you very much. All the begging in the world isn't going to make that much difference, with main stream media. Even pleading with alternative media is an exercise in futility, for the most part. (There are exceptions, such as Richard Greene of Air America Radio.)

At the end of the day, anybody serious about changing America has to figure out how to collectively assume REAL political power, by getting responsible people elected to REAL positions of political power, such as Congress. And you can't do that with a single issue. Yes, even 911! In fact, I'd say especially 911, which suffers from a "high strangeness" perception by the uninitiated (which is most of the public). You will know worthy political candidates when you hear them, because you don't have to BEG them to try and reform America in dramatic ways that serve the public good. Instead, they will be trying to LEAD America in a more benevolent direction.

So, instead of putting the cart before the horse, I would challenge 911 Truth activists to get involved with reform efforts of the standard political parties - Democrats and Republicans - as well as third parties, such as the Green Party. In my opinion, it's simply a DELUSION to think that a Congress which is composed of individuals, both Democratic and Republican, and which has a history of funding violent interference in the Middle East to secure 'our' oil supplies, but has no real national energy policy designed to free us from such a dependence, is going to re-investigate 911. The people in Congress aren't dumb, and if a third of Americans, in general, believe in MIHOP or LIHOP, you can be sure that at least a third of Congress does, also. Yet, they keep their mouths shut (with rare exceptions.)

So, for 911 Activists to jabber on about reinvestigating 911, when they can't even get a decent Congress elected, and for the most part, don't even try, makes NO sense to me. Yes, some street type activism has, in American history, led to significant change. Withdrawal from Vietnam and civil rights are the two big ones that come to mind. And yes, just raising consciousness is important, and has value (see my First suggestion, and Second suggestion). But we will never get those types of crowds for most issues, 911 included. And even if we did, riddle me this: "How effective were the massive demonstrations against the Iraq invasion in preventing that fiasco?". Do you see where I'm going with this question?

I see no alternative for real, lasting, change but for John Q. Public to get involved politcally, and to stay involved, politically. To this end, 911 street activists should be challenging the public with questions to make them realize their responsibility as citizens in getting a decent Congress elected. To the point of asking them, e.g., "Why don't YOU run for Congress? Our current congress person not only refuses to support a 911 re-investigation, and not only won't they acknowledge that the first one was a whitewash, they won't even support a national energy policy designed to make us energy independent!" Because, in the end, the issue of John Q. Public taking responsibility, as part of the collective, to assume real political power is the most important lesson that any activist who takes a big picture and long-term view of things can convey. Even if you convince the average Joe that at least LIHOP was likely, just what is he supposed to do about that information? There are many answers to this question, but any answer which doesn't realistically attempt to understand and then change the way that power really works, is ultimately futile.

I would suggest, finally, that all 911 activists study how groups such as the Progressive Democrats of America and the dailykos community are attempting to change the Democratic party, how the Ron Paul supporters are attempting to change the Republican party, and how the Green Party is going about things. These people all know that political power ultimately passes through Washington, and real change depends on who is sitting in the seats of power, there.

http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org