Washblog

In the liberal media - scarce as it is - there is a level of frustration wondering when people will "wake up." We've all heard the phrase and probably used it. We're awake, so why isn't the rest of the country?

Granted, there are those who are abysmally ignorant - ignorant really beyond comprehension. Very recently, a Pew study found that 41% of Americans couldn't name a single Republican candidate. I'm not making a political statement here, but it seems almost unimaginable that close to half of Americans who are bombarded every day with propagandistic media galore can't name such a nominee. Given that the general consensus of the left is that media is in large part to blame for the mess we're in, one would think that at least the Republican candidates would have filtered through better.

So, we're left with realizing that a huge portion of the population is too busy, too disgruntled, too ignorant, or simply couldn't care less about civic engagement. Of course there are plenty of others who feel the same way, but could at least name a presidential candidate.

But for the rest of us who are engaged, who read, who write, who talk and discuss, and who think about these matters that affect our communities, our country, and humanity in general, how did we become so engaged? My theory is that we were part in some way of a catalyzing event.

For me that event was the 2004 election. I saw the data of the exit polls and knew that Kerry was going to win only to listen incredulously the next day when it was announced that Kerry had "lost" and had abdicated. I read voraciously online trying to understand what had happened. At first, there was almost nothing. AirAmerica was silent. Then, after about a week, articles started to trickle in and a few people such as radio talk show host Randi Rhodes were discussing the topic. And soon after, study after study came out many of which seemed to demonstrate that the election had been stolen. The mainstream media, of course, was silent except those such as the "liberal" New York Times who tried to downplay the theft as imaginary or as Mother Jones who in their editorial did the same. We simply had to accept defeat and move on. But based on what I was reading, I couldn't just give up. I wasn't disappointed; I was angry at the theft, the lies, and the attempt to dismiss and humiliate those who were trying to do what presidents Jefferson and Kennedy encouraged us to do. I started to speak within my community, wrote a number of articles, went to an election fraud conference in Nashville, and started to become very engaged politically. That engagement led me to other topics and to other people. Each person was passionate, some about my topic, some about other topics. Very few, however, were really open to listening unless the topic of discussion was the same as theirs.

Due to my civic engagement I was connected with other people and ideas. First, there was a person who was a strong believer in the 9/11 cover-up theory which later turned into the 9/11 Truth movement. Against my protestations, he politely forced several of us to watch a film. We did, and none of us was ever the same. For some people, the election provided this catalyzing event, for others it was 9/11Truth. In general, what appears to happen is that a set of beliefs firmly (and naively) held since youth, become subverted. A person's world outlook, their belief paradigm is turned on its head. Once that occurs, the person learns and becomes more willing to consider that maybe there are other "truths" which are, in fact, Orwellian.

There are many conspiracy theorists out there and many conspiracies. While many conservatives and media personalities wish to portray these truth seekers as a fringe element or as unstable "wackos," I've also grown aware that even progressives tend to do the same about whatever issue doesn't match their current belief structure. They might know for a fact that the election was stolen, but they wish that those crazy 9/11 Truthers would stop changing the agenda and give liberals a bad name. It's counter-productive, after all. Or is it? Maybe we should really be more open and consider that these people simply underwent a different catalyzing event.

Let's consider another example: For years we have heard "the lunatic fringe" advocate how Americans don't actually have to pay income taxes. Well, the more you read about the topic, the more unclear it actually becomes. The IRS is covering up - that much we know - and so is Congress. Court cases have been decided in favor of people not having to pay income tax. Court cases have also been decided that maintain the 16th amendment imposes no new taxes despite the fact that this is exactly what it appears to do. So go ahead, dig a little and find out the evidence behind this catalyzing event. A good start is probably the recent film, "From Freedom to Fascism" by the late Aaron Russo. These tax "nuts" may be no crazier than the 9/11 Truthers or the election fraud tinfoil hats.

Then there are those who are intrigued by the "New World Order" which suggests that there is a small group of elite individuals throughout the world who are not only in control of government, but seek to create one world government focused on corporate dominance above all human rights. These people are especially concerned with the RFID technology and the idea of implanting microchips into people. It's not that absurd since it's already being used on animals and Alzheimer's patients. In addition, we're all carrying around cell phones already which is a voluntary acquiescence to being tracked through GPS for the sake of convenience. While this is often painted as absurd by the power structure and by the ignorant, these individuals reply, "but what about the Bilderberg Conference, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations?" Why all the controversy about the Federal Reserve not being nearly as "federal" as they would like people to believe? If this is new to you, start reading. Why all the secrecy if there is nothing to hide? And while we're on the topic of secrecy, why is there still so much secrecy and uncertainty about Kennedy's assassination?

There are also certain books that might be a catalyzing event for some. John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" is an incredible book demonstrating US exploits of other cultures and countries, of setting countries up to pay back loans they can't possibly repay so that their country's infrastructure and resources can then be privatized for the benefit of American corporations. Norman Finkelstein's short book called "The Holocaust Industry" is another such book that is almost beyond belief. It shows how an elite group of individuals interested only in money and power has subverted the tragedy of the Nazi Holocaust for their own gain. Entire countries are being blackmailed. Victims of that Holocaust are victimized yet again by the very people and organizations alleging to help them. And then we have the new book by Walt and Mearsheimber called "The Israel Lobby" that tries to show how our government institutions and leaders are not acting in the best interests of American citizens, but are beholden to a foreign government. Chris Hedges "American Fascists" is another fascinating unveiling of the paradoxical and hypocritical agenda of the Christian Right. And David Ray Griffin's books such as "The New Pearl Harbor" are enough to get almost anyone thinking about 9/11.

There are too many films to list or summarize which might serve as catalyzing event. "Loose Change" was certainly a popular one discussing the controversies around 9/11. "Zeitgeist" is another that tackles Christianity, 9/11, and the New World Order. "From Freedom to Fascism" takes a hard look at the money and tax system. And the list goes on and on...

Whatever the topic of the day - 9/11, globalization, election fraud, media consolidation, the tax system & Federal Reserve, the new world order - they all involve power structures beyond realization by most of us. Each of these is in a different stage of acceptance and exploration, but the events & topics do connect. And the people advocating for these topics have something in common: they have found contradictory evidence not consistent with mainstream belief of the official story. They are not, in fact, irrational nuts, but have found troubling contradictions the belief of which they advocate would in itself be irrational. All of these groups have the common goal of exposing deception & exploitation and unveiling truth. So while there are counterproductive groups representing issues of distraction, we all need to do a better job of understanding these other viewpoints and to research the claims before arriving at a premature conclusion. If we are open to this level of rational thought and critical thinking - which is in itself a threat to the administration and an approach discouraged by such initiatives as "No Child Left Behind - then we will be able to discern fact from fiction and truth from spin much easier.

There are those (on the left, not the right!) who advocate that while global warming is serious, it's not as much of an emergency as some claim it is. And it may not even be man-made or, for that matter, man-curable. Maybe there is some truth to what these people say that it is just the latest effort spun in such a way as to appeal to the left, but really designed to impoverish the working class even further through additional taxation. The elite certainly has an easier job, if the left advocates for something which is, in fact, detrimental to itself by advocating its own impoverishment. Is the left then not digging its own grave? Before assuming the current mainstream view that people are the cause of global warming, should we not consider the possibility of deception? Do we not owe it to humanity to verify this truth before committing to it and lessening our own influence in the process? Yes, it may require questioning Al Gore, but have we not learned yet that we need to question and research first? Then we decide. Would this realization be another catalyzing event for some, if it turns out to be true?

If we have experienced one catalyzing event, then our life has already changed course. We're following a new narrative based on new insight, an opening mind, and critical thinking. New catalyzing events are likely to take place, but each one gets easier because the resistance and the barriers to be broken down are getting lower. After 9/11, many people were freighted; then came the realization that the "war on terror" was simply being used to manipulate; now the latest terror threat - such as FOX news advocating terrorist plots as the cause of the California fires - are laughable.

So, think back for a moment. What was your catalyzing event? How has your life narrative changed since then? Can you consider - just for a moment - that others might have different experiences, but that they all lead to the same place? If we don't understand this critical similarity, then the likes of Karl Rowe will always win, because we are dividing and conquering ourselves. But if we think critically and rationally, and we recognize deception, raise awareness and educate and, finally, unite, then we win - and victory over deception and oppression is guaranteed. (deus ex machina)