Outing a Stephen Harper Reactionary OR Terry Glavin, Canadia

Natocolony

If you are unfamiliar with investigations of 911 not conducted by the Bush administration, in my opinion the best place to start is Mike Ruppert’s book, “Crossing the Rubicon, The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Oil Age”. This book has been added to the Harvard Business School’s business library. He has a website called “From the Wilderness”. An excerpt for the website gives one some idea of who reads it.

“FTW is now read by more than 20,000 subscribers in 40 countries including 40 members of the US Congress and professors at 30 universities around the world.”

He is one of many credible researchers. If you aren’t aware of the arguments against the administration’s theory you will likely be shocked and angered, as almost any reason person would, once they become aware of the facts and events surrounding 911.

Mike
Winnipeg

On conspiracy and 911.
Here's what I think happened leading up to 9-11, on 9-11, and beyond
The United States has been oppressing people, either directly, or indirectly by supporting oppressive regimes for a long time.
Washington has been meddling in the affairs of other states for cynical big-power reasons, and using various agencies like the CIA etc, has at times experienced "blowback", when a former asset like bin Laden turns on his sponser.
I have not read the official version of 911 by the whitewash panel but I'm willing to bet that if it mentions what I wrote above, it does it with way too little emphasis.
So it's not accurate to say I believe the "official narrative", and my mistake if I was unclear in stating that any "official" version of events that doesn't discuss US foreign policy, the middle east, oppression of Palestinians by Israel supported by US politically and with billions of weapons etc. is dodging the main questions of why and how 911 happened and is not worth the paper it's printed on.
Then there is the response to 9-11 by much of the informed world, which I think can be summed-up as shocked and sickened but not really that surprised at the seething hatred.
So ask all the questions you want about anything you like, but unless we deal with the underlying issues, I believe we are misdirected in approach.
I think that fear and frustration, hopelessness, etc. sometimes lead people to simple answers like "If we just prove how bad these guys are, by showing or intimating that they did this to their own country, or let it happen, knowing that they would reap the power benefits, then we can stop this madness."
I believe that millions have died as a result of US foreign policy, and that the Empire Project has taken on new speed, urgency and desperation after 9-11, and that we are careening to ever greater depths of danger and instability.
Partly, this is due to the lack of an opposing empire, even though the USSR was peanuts compared to Uncle Sam.
It also has a great deal to do with the scarcity of crucial resourses, like oil.
I also happen to think that it is primarily Americans who the world should be trying to convince to take their country into a new direction.

People are free, it's true to believe whatever they want, and to pursue different tactics.
But I don't buy the goods you are peddling.
If, for example, 911 is the lynchpin from which all else flows, what was the lynchpin for the murderous sanctions that Iraqi's suffered and died under for all those years prior to 9-11, that largely contributed to the seething hatred and hopelessness and created the chasm that the kook bin Laden could step into and claim to have a solution to?
Was there a false flag operation to manipulate public opinion?
Of course there wasn't. Just the same old corporate media towing the party line, covering up the truth.

Thank you for your response notacolony you say:

”So ask all the questions you want about anything you like, but unless we deal with the underlying issues, I believe we are misdirected in approach.
I think that fear and frustration, hopelessness, etc. sometimes lead people to simple answers like "If we just prove how bad these guys are, by showing or intimating that they did this to their own country, or let it happen, knowing that they would reap the power benefits, then we can stop this madness."

I agree with the underlying issues being US policy/empire building and they do predate 911. I don’t however think there is one answer only on where to focus opposition.

“If, for example, 911 is the lynchpin from which all else flows, what was the lynchpin for the murderous sanctions that Iraqi's suffered and died under for all those years prior to 9-11, that largely contributed to the seething hatred and hopelessness and created the chasm that the kook bin Laden could step into and claim to have a solution to?
Was there a false flag operation to manipulate public opinion?”

911 isn’t a catchall magic bullet theory that will define or encompass the entire problem, it is one facet of the actions of an empire bent on conquest and control of scarce resources. I see 911 as a linking pin in that the current Canadian Afghan mission stems from 911 and the invasion of Iraq stems from 911. Without 911 talk of preemptive strikes on Iran and “necessary and beneficial torture” would never be taking place right now. 911 is a dividing line in the public consciousness that changes the way we think and what we are willing to embrace to ensure our security. 911 was and continues to be the invasion, and looting license of the century, it needs to be dismantled.

I’m not “peddling” anything. Jet fuel either burns hot enough to weaken or melt steel or it doesn’t. There’s not a lot of wiggle room there. Respectfully, What you seem to be peddling is wholesale dismissal of debunking the 911 story without actually dealing with the information. I can fully appreciate differences in tactics, but not cannibalizing a legitimate avenue of investigation because it not the only truth on the market or because it doesn’t currently fit neatly into mainstream parameters.

"You’re perfectly entitled to wring your hands and lament about all the 'well-informed Canadians' and activists and 'progressive, caring' people who aren’t smart enough to see how right you are about everything."

"You’re perfectly welcome to your own parochial hatred of the United States, and your bitterness over the fact that it's shared only by a tiny minority of Canadians."

Finally, someone on here who gets what Mathews is about - ego and hatred. Beautifully stated!

The fact that Vive keeps Mathews on as a marquee poster says to me that Vive is an anti-American site, its FAQ be damned.

Now before you left-wing outrage-junkies go on your usual yawn-inducing tirade about how simply opposing US foreign policy or the current US government isn't being anti-American, let me make it clear that I am *not* equating criticism of the US government with anti-Americanism.

Let me express it this way. While opposing Zionism does not make one anti-Jewish, the anti-Zionism movement undoubtedly contains people who also happen to hate Jews. Similarly, the Canadian nationalist movement is bound to contain a small number of people who are motivated by hatred of the United States. I believe Robin Mathews to be one of those. To use his "good peoples/bad peoples" scheme, he considers Americans a "bad people", with any group that finds itself opposed to the US automatically being good.

"Finally, someone on here who gets what Mathews is about - ego and hatred. Beautifully stated!"

Au contraie Mon Ami
All you have foud is a partner in twisted thinking as yyou march along with the herd of non critical thinkers

---
We have met the enemy and he is us
Pogo
A mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled.
Plutarch

To DL,
I appreciate the tone of civility with which you write.
One of the main stumbling blocks I have is the little I've heard of this "gatekeeper" business.
You write: "I can fully appreciate differences in tactics, but not cannibalizing a legitimate avenue of investigation because it not the only truth on the market or because it doesn’t currently fit neatly into mainstream parameters."

First of all, even the facts that we've agreed upon do not fit neatly into mainstream parametres.

Do you believe that Chomsky, Zinn, and Goodman are "mainstream" and that they are "gatekeepers"?

That's about as far as I got in one presentation that I heard on "Truth and 911".

And what about the sanctions on Iraq? This was managed and maintained in a pre 9-11 world system with no dramatic precipitating event, just the institutions as they were, are, and will continue to be unless the change I think we both seek is attained.

How would "debunking 9-11" fix any of that?
As you probably know, I completely agree that 9-11 makes war-making and freedom-erosion easy.

It's just that is wasn't that difficult to do before 9-11.

Here's a link to an item that I'd encourage you to read. I'm interested in your response.

First of all, even the facts that we've agreed upon do not fit neatly into mainstream parametres<<

Personaly I believe something can be possible or probable but still not yet fact. I don't believe in a god(s) neither. The most striking event's of 911 are the given facts that are not probable nor possible. I was on the HMCS Gatineau when the ship caught fire. The fire was started by an overheated deep fryer that caused the cooking oil to catch flame. The enclosed ship sustained damage to the electrical wires (the plastic coating) and the aluminum craddle that held the wires. The aluminum did burn and so did the many coats of paint.. None of the steel in the ship was effected. The smoke was the most contributing factor dictating our fire fighting skills. New paint and wiring got the ship seaworthy again. One would assume that the carpeting, drapes, furnature and other fixtures would be the major fires in those towers. The smoke would be unbearable. None of those items will melt steel. (It's not probable) The impossible comes when documentation was found in the after-rubble identifying a saboteur in the plane. I am not yet convinced of the conspiracy but certainly question the explanations given for the simple questions. Why would anyone give false testimony to explain and defy even basic logic? If there is nothing to hide, one should be able to get direct and unfalteringly answers. A blacksmith and a welder can tell you they can't use kerosene to melt metal.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

Notacolony wrote:

And furthermore, I'm finding it distressing to see the number of people on this site who are buying into conspiracy theories.
------------------

Two things of interest here surrounding notacolony’s statement and with the 5th anniversary of 911 but days away I suppose it’s not out of place to say something.

9-11, like the Reichstag fire in Germany in ‘33 and Pearl Harbour in ’41 and, not coincidentally, the events of 11-7 in ’17 are all interconnected by a common denominator and that is of course the Zionist/Jewish/Israeli one.

If a person tries to search in just one closet for the key to the vault then they’ll not likely find it. It’s in the overall background gestalt that one is able to delineate the lines that are tending to converge into a recognizable picture; one whose ghastly outlines are becoming more and more forcefully clear as we observe US/Israeli policies unfolding in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Of course without studying these apparently disparate factors and finding the missing links it then becomes easy for people to fall into the trap of dismissing the “alternative” opinions and evidence that points to major discrepancies and obvious coverup.

The other thing though that people like notacolony need to realize is that terms such as “conspiracy” are in fact more than what they appear to be and in truth are terms used by the conspirators themselves. Douglas Reed in his book, The Controversy of Zion, gives us a good example of this. He chose as the title for his 31st Chapter the phrase “The Web of Intrigue” and then goes on to describe how during the 1914-1918 war Col. House and his Jewish “advisors”, men like Mr. Justice Brandeis (advisor to the President on the “Jewish question”), Rabbi Stephen Wise, the chief organizer for the Zionists in the US, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, head of the World Zionist Organization and financier Bernard Baruch were guiding every move that President Wilson was making even at that early point in history. All this “lobbying” as we now call it was carried on behind the scenes of public awareness and the conniving and working in the background (conspiring or conspiracy) was meant then (as it is now) solely to manipulate American and British foreign policies in favour of Israel and the creation of their future “homeland” in Palestine.

It was Mr. Arthur D. Howden, Colonel House’s biographer, who in consultation with House had the following to say:

"Mr. House had the initiative in what was done . . . The State Department was relegated to the status of an intermediary for his ideas, a depository of public records. Much of the more confidential diplomatic correspondence passed directly through the little apartment in East 35th Street [where House lived. AT]. The Ambassadors of the belligerents called on him when they wanted to influence the Administration or sought assistance in the web of intrigue that was being spun across the Atlantic".

Mr. Seymour, Howden’s editor, also says: "It would be difficult in all history to find another instance of diplomacy so unconventional and so effective. Colonel House, a private citizen, spreads all the cards on the table and concerts with the Ambassador of a foreign power the dispatches to be sent to the American Ambassador and Foreign Minister of that power".

And so this conspiracy or “web of intrigue” is something that notacolony ought to be looking into in greater depth and then possibly some of the missing pieces of the puzzle will begin to show up.

Having done a considerable amount of research into the whole question I would venture to state that the lynchpin people are searching for is Political Zionism and its workings.

---
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
http://www.radicalpress.com

Arthur, good food for thought. You are correct, of course, when you say that the bigger picture must be understood prior to understanding the isolated actions. Of course, the bigger picture clearly illustrates that false flag attacks have been utilized by tyrants (democratic or otherwise) throughout history.

DL, you said, "If we just prove how bad these guys are, by showing or intimating that they did this to their own country, or let it happen, knowing that they would reap the power benefits, then we can stop this madness."

"Showing how bad these guys are" initially shocks the psyche when one discovers that the official 9/11 story is bogus, but afterwards the 9/11 revelation only indicates the level of resistance that is required to struggle against their tyranny and shows how foolish it is to rely on MSM for any critical information.

---
Michael

I take it your definition of "non critical thinker" is someone who disagrees with you. How convenient it must be to believe that all who hold opinions different from your own are flawed in their thinking processes. That must make life very simple for you.

Yes notacolony, you are right, the facts we've agreed upon don't fit neatly into mainstream parameters. I should have left that part of my statement out, as I don’t feel it applies to you, and is more appropriate in a dialog with posters who would disagree with both the positions we hold.

As for if Chomsky, Zinn and Goodman being mainstream gatekeepers, I’m not aware of the 911 presentation or part thereof, that comes from, and no I wouldn't have called Chomsky mainstream from where I currently stand, but others might. Not all 911 “alternative narratives” are equal and the best ones are often judged guilty by association by the most wildly improbable ones, at least that is how the MSM is treating the subject.

In my personal experience, my level of political awareness was virtually non-existent prior to 911. After the shock of 911, I was one who championed the move into Afghanistan to "get Osama and by golly make me safe again". It was only when the WMD stories began and they began turned their eyes on Iraq that I shook my head and said "Wait a minute, what's Iraq got to do with anything". From there I went back to 911 for a second look and I had to question my trust in the MSM message. I think that the stranglehold of the MSM message is critical. If no there was no other benefit from debunking 911 than widespread mistrust or reexamination of the implicit trust in the “one voice” of the MSM, then it’s worth pursuing. Your right debunking isn’t the only answer, although I still do feel there’s room for and benefit in, more than one focus. The Iraq invasion stems directly form 911. 911 and the resulting “war on terror” are the justification for the invasions that followed. I see 911 as an “invasionary” get out of jail free card. War and sanctions both kill but the cost in terms of justification required to implement may not be as equal.

It may well be that 911, and the debunking thereof is a window into the heart of the mainstream consciousness that will illuminate who is pulling the strings, and what they are all about.

The link you sent didn’t get make it through the "technosphere",

could you send it again?

Remember that Arthur's "bigger picture" is - "it's all the Jews' fault". What Americans are to Mathews, Jews are to Topham.

Here's the link again, DL 
And another as well 
 
> <a href="http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/julaug02shalom.html">http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/julaug02shalom.html</a> 
> 
> <a href="http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/BERC004.shtml">http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/BERC004.shtml</a> 
 
Please bear in mind that neither of these will directly refute anything, as there seem to be at once either no theories, and an endless amount of them. 
 
Nonetheless, I think they articulate quite well commonalities between the kinds of "conspiracies" I'm talking about. 
 
Thank you for writing about the tradjectory of your awareness post 9-11. 
 
I experienced what I also consider to be a great change, at least at the tactital level, going from a general left-international focus to a left national one, where first and foremost, for many reasons, the mission is to save Canada.