Smearing the 9/11 Truthers
Why are so many random acts of violence being blamed on dissenting free speech groups? We are repeatedly told that lone individuals who carry out violence may be 9/11 truthers or may be Tea Party members or may be Constitutionalists.
This pattern accusation is particularly perturbing because, most of these “groups” are really broad movements made up of many small groups, many of whom disagree profoundly, and of many individuals, some of whom associate, some of whom are isolated. The only unifying element, if any, is in sharing a belief. How these individuals act on such a belief is a different matter altogether.
But for media pundits like Glenn Beck, Chris Matthews and etc., it is fuel to link individual acts of violence with broad political beliefs. What is the agenda?
It is clearly manifest an effort to neutralize dissent via a paralyzing guilt-by-association holding pattern. The media smear campaign is clearly coordinated to stop the spread of popular outrage against Washington. But how could widespread popular support for formal hate speech legislation or a de facto atmosphere of thought crime ever be generated under the bitter and divided party lines that have emerged under Obama’s presidency?
You’d have to unite the right AND the left to back thought crime.
It has already been played out in the mainstream media’s script over the past year:
What have the FOX-fueled ‘right’ pundits like O’Reilly, Hannity and Glenn Beck railed against more than 9/11 truthers and Bush “haters”?
Outrage is triggered in the left and Democrat wing by racism and now by Obama “haters”.
Under the Obama-era, the phony ‘left’-leaning talking heads have declared open-season on branding political opponents as “racists,” often desperately playing the race card at every sign of opposition to anything in the President’s agenda. Chris Matthews has wielded the “racist” tea party mantra in combination with smearing the ‘violent’ Tea Parties and groups like the Oath Keepers. Now, via Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), groups such as We Are Change, who are essentially citizen journalists, and groups including the Constitution Party have also been smeared. Astonishingly they have alleged violence where there is none.
Yet the connection is established with a scattered “pattern” of lone individuals who have been painted in the colors of various targeted groups. I suspect a ‘false flag’ of a different kind all together– primarily media driven, and disconnected in terms of the flagrant or violent acts in question. Perhaps a dirty tricks campaign.
All of these groups are, at any organizational level (if any) and in its body politic, completely within the bounds of free speech and non-violent political action.
But these smear campaigns have preemptively labeled broad groups as “potential” violators of some foggy, abstract category like “terrorist” or “racist” or even “hurtful.” Sadly, it’s nothing new for developing countries who were mired by cheap dictators and brutally
Have Glenn Beck and Chris Matthews linked peaceful activists with violent acts to spring the trap for an era of thought crime laws and politically-correct repression?
by Aaron Dykes March 5, 2010 Infowars Commentary
The Smearing
of Dissent as “Violence”
Washington’s Blog March 8, 2010
Most Americans don’t know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can’t figure out whether or not they are dangerous.
Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9/11. The list proves – once and for all – that people who question 9/11 are dangerous.
Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases.
Senior intelligence officers:
• Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is “far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers”. He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that “very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been”, that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there’s enough evidence to justify a new, “hard-hitting” investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).
• A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. … All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11.” (and see this)
Proof that 9/11
Truthers are Dangerous
“The first casualty of War is Truth”