Strategy for helping politicians 'come out' together

[Keith Mothersson]

All the parties have sincere and damaged/cynical politicians, sides, policies, and all have a degree of Spook influence near the helm. It is easy to rubbish all politicians as *, as dupes of the Illuminati or whatever, but involvement even in conventional politics is probably healthier than privatised lives of shopping, watching the box and moaning about how all politicians are out for themselves.

Although many of us hope for are mostly more participatory and consultative model for doing politics, it will be great if those of us with links in (or across) various parties take responsibility to help draw our colleagues, contacts along to the table of truth.

So our first requirement is some good will. patience and a willingness to see the good where it is to be found across most of the poltical spectrum.

After years (now) of lobbying individual MPs and also attending several party conferences we have sown a good few seads, and I expect there are many party members and some MPs and MSPs who privately agree with us.

But we haven't found a single one prepared to say the blunt truth that 911 was an inside Job, Frame Up for War and Blood Libel. (Meacher says there was a stand down order but can't conceive that the whole Islamic Hijacker story is an Islamophobic legend built around pre-positioned patsies.)

If people wish to help educate politicians, I think it can be best done softly softly, building trust bit by bit that they aren't going to be outed to the media for the 'conspiracy nut' treatment until they are strong enough to handle it, have got their sound-bites ready and know how to turn the accusation back against those who, against all the evidence, continue to believe the Official Conspiracy Theory.

There is a system called 'simultaneous policy' or simpol which I think we need to bring into play. (Actually I recall a much simpler system still: an Irish frind had been brought up in an abusive monastery, where everyone feared the hated 'Theologians'. One day a hum started very softly, no one moving their lips, but grew to a growl and then a crescendo in which the bully had to make a run for it. )

Both SIMPOL and the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Peace Journey to Nuclear Capitals, which had preceded it in the eighties, are designed for multi-party logjam situations where each party says they would be prepared to unjam if the other parties also do, but because they won't then that party won't either. (Decommision nukes, abolish trade dumping, say boo to the Yanks, stop putting so much salt and sugar in foods, whatever.....) In commercial terms Tesco says it won't move because if Asda doesnt then all the people who have been conditioned to prefer the 'tastiness' of unhealthy food additives will take their custom off to Asda; and vice versa. Each hides behind the other citing 'first mover disadvantage'.

The WILPF Peace process was to simultaneously ask governments if they would take such and such a step if all the others also did. Each yea-saying multilateralist government was asked to report in ignorance of how the other governments would handle that tricky request. The aim was to flush out the phoney multilateralist(s), the better to put maximum effort (pressure and/or education as appropriate) to get that laggard unilateralist to join in.

In the present case a group prepared to commit the time and patience to this project could

1) identify the few, or one or two, best prospects in each party;

2) ask them to send their trusted researchers or party chairs to an informally cross-party screening of the new 911 Eyewitness multilength presentations :http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2412&highlight=
where, as in all subsequent presentations, we take care to involve people psychologically, not just bombard them with distressing info we don't give them time to process; the processing could take place in the round across party lines or else in party groups with one of us maybe sitting in with each mini-cluster (if desired); then towards the end of the afternoon a collective briefing on the Sim-Pol strategy is offered and the mini groups from each party are asked to reflect on what they think about it and would they help work towards a cross-party (safety in numbers!) 911 group if the other cluster do as well, and to 'declare' simultanously (evelopes opened in random order) in front of each other. Assuming Yes ! we then move to ...

3) We then write to each of the politicians who sent a representative to the truth presentation to see if, now that they have had a favourable report back (hopefully), they would agree to come to an informal crossparty meeting (or send a senior replacement if diary clashes) if the others also will move alittle further out along this seeming shaky branch.
Repeat presentation, with both emotional debriefing, followed by a second presentation in which we outline a) Simpol principles, b) our hope for a cross party group, and c) various factors which they may like to take into account in weighing the risks and potential advantages in persuading their colleagues to keep coming with them. For example they may not know the sheer number of people who disbelieve official conspiracy, how many kids, working people etc have already seen 911 truth dvds and are copying them, etc, albeit many aren't voters, but what a chance to win them back to having faith in politicians again! And once the 911 truth gets past critical mass, like Watergate eventually did, then they could be able to brand their party as the party of truth, you heard it from us first folks! So first mover disadvantage (being rubbished as having lost the plot by mainstream press) is much more apparent than real, and in many cases can be offset by first-mover advantages, many local ears would prick up if their MP started speaking out, and if Party A won't go for it, there is the risk Party B might beat them to it, so they had better be quick! ......

Ask participants to break into groups, come back with feedback, questions, etc and out of this try to divise a way forward for e.g. motions within each party structures for Simpol type progress, possibly support for an International Investigative Tribunal if the other parties also agree to call for it. Will they meet again, take x step if the other agree to do so as well? (simultaneous delarations).

Ideally we could see a cross-party group on 911 and False Flag terrorism, which had members from several parties and also co-opted 911 truth activists, called in researchers on occasion, etc.

Anyway, that's my fantasy. Aim to work on it in Scotland. Good luck to others approaching politicians and parties elsewhere.

(A similar approach could be to competing media channels and/or papers, asking them to agree to a joint Tribunal supplement or programme in which the rival conspiracy hypotheses could be fully laid out - followed by readers poll or jointly funded Opinion poll. )