Mike Ruppert Wants to "Move On" from 9/11?
Interesting discussion here.
Without listening to the speech in question, it's not clear to me if Ruppert is saying that it's not important now who was behind 9/11, or if he is saying that the window of opportunity for exposing the truth on 9/11 is closed and that our actions are better spent focusing on the future.
I suspect Ruppert means the latter. To a certain extent I agree. Of course we should keep trying to expose the truth about 9/11. But for some time now, I have realized that 9/11, the way it was set up in the first place, is simply something that is too big to be exposed as a fraud. Most Americans simply don't want to believe it, the media doesn't want to touch it, and thus, the story will not budge.
However, I still think it is worth spending time pounding away on 9/11. The same crew is in power, and they are still accountable to some extent. And there is always some slight chance the 9/11 truth movement could catch the attention of someone important who is willing to do something about it.
As far as Ruppert-- he constantly generates controversy in the "conspiracy community", for reasons I don't exactly understand. Probably partly because he is somewhat more mainstream and has maintained a higher profile than other conspiracy types. He mostly seems to be a bit of a old-fashioned guy who has been embraced by the counter-culture for his research on 9/11. He is somewhat conservative in his political beliefs, as far as I can tell. And he is a bit pompous.
BUT-- I have read "Crossing the Rubicon", I've read his free pieces at his "From The Wilderness" site (I'm not a subscriber), and I have listened to a couple of speeches he gave (via the internet). I have a generally good impression of him. I think he is a smart, interesting, entertaining and very substantial figure involved in researching a very dark area of US governmental operations. I won't vouch for everything Ruppert says or writes, but I think mostly he has gotten it right on 9/11.
My major criticism of Ruppert is that he is far too pessimistic on the implications of Peak Oil. I think Peak Oil is a major problem, but my opinion is that it is quite possible that dwindling oil is something that this world can deal with without major upheavals and major loss of life. Of course, I could be wrong, but my prediction is that there simply won't be rapid and calamitous changes from dwindling oil supplies. Certainly there will be major change of a type which is impossible to predict, but these changes will play out over several decades. This is what history suggests, anyway.
If Mike Ruppert wants to "move on" from 9/11, I imagine it is mostly for practical reasons-- not because he isn't interested in justice. And I can sympathize.
The cold, hard reality is that, in the absence of an incredibly organized and diligent effort, 9/11 truth or 9/11 skepticism will never move mass public opinion. And unfortunately, the movement HAS been fairly disorganized, one reason being that people can't seem to agree on what they think happened on 9/11. There are too many red herrings and the people can't even agree on the red herrings. And of course, most people have families and jobs, and life really isn't so bad overall, and thus they simply can't commit to full-time activism. This is understandable.
For what it is worth, I will keep pushing 9/11 here on this blog-- for a while anyway.
I have this kooky idea that if I read, write and think about 9/11 long enough, then eventually the simple weight of my work will mean something, and perhaps will be enough to change someone's mind.
We'll see!
Without listening to the speech in question, it's not clear to me if Ruppert is saying that it's not important now who was behind 9/11, or if he is saying that the window of opportunity for exposing the truth on 9/11 is closed and that our actions are better spent focusing on the future.
I suspect Ruppert means the latter. To a certain extent I agree. Of course we should keep trying to expose the truth about 9/11. But for some time now, I have realized that 9/11, the way it was set up in the first place, is simply something that is too big to be exposed as a fraud. Most Americans simply don't want to believe it, the media doesn't want to touch it, and thus, the story will not budge.
However, I still think it is worth spending time pounding away on 9/11. The same crew is in power, and they are still accountable to some extent. And there is always some slight chance the 9/11 truth movement could catch the attention of someone important who is willing to do something about it.
As far as Ruppert-- he constantly generates controversy in the "conspiracy community", for reasons I don't exactly understand. Probably partly because he is somewhat more mainstream and has maintained a higher profile than other conspiracy types. He mostly seems to be a bit of a old-fashioned guy who has been embraced by the counter-culture for his research on 9/11. He is somewhat conservative in his political beliefs, as far as I can tell. And he is a bit pompous.
BUT-- I have read "Crossing the Rubicon", I've read his free pieces at his "From The Wilderness" site (I'm not a subscriber), and I have listened to a couple of speeches he gave (via the internet). I have a generally good impression of him. I think he is a smart, interesting, entertaining and very substantial figure involved in researching a very dark area of US governmental operations. I won't vouch for everything Ruppert says or writes, but I think mostly he has gotten it right on 9/11.
My major criticism of Ruppert is that he is far too pessimistic on the implications of Peak Oil. I think Peak Oil is a major problem, but my opinion is that it is quite possible that dwindling oil is something that this world can deal with without major upheavals and major loss of life. Of course, I could be wrong, but my prediction is that there simply won't be rapid and calamitous changes from dwindling oil supplies. Certainly there will be major change of a type which is impossible to predict, but these changes will play out over several decades. This is what history suggests, anyway.
If Mike Ruppert wants to "move on" from 9/11, I imagine it is mostly for practical reasons-- not because he isn't interested in justice. And I can sympathize.
The cold, hard reality is that, in the absence of an incredibly organized and diligent effort, 9/11 truth or 9/11 skepticism will never move mass public opinion. And unfortunately, the movement HAS been fairly disorganized, one reason being that people can't seem to agree on what they think happened on 9/11. There are too many red herrings and the people can't even agree on the red herrings. And of course, most people have families and jobs, and life really isn't so bad overall, and thus they simply can't commit to full-time activism. This is understandable.
For what it is worth, I will keep pushing 9/11 here on this blog-- for a while anyway.
I have this kooky idea that if I read, write and think about 9/11 long enough, then eventually the simple weight of my work will mean something, and perhaps will be enough to change someone's mind.
We'll see!
posted by spooked at 7:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home