Thanks again for sharing your perspective, and for taking in stride the skepticism some of us have expressed with regard to your solidly "left wing" approach to 9/11 truth. Rather than talk past each other, though, I really hope we can engage in a dialogue that addresses some of the concerns that I have given my experience not only with 9/11 truth but also with the fake/controlled left that I was much more a part of when I was focusing on antiwar activism (thinking at the time that 9/11 truth was 'too much' for people to accept, how foolish!)

To wit, and to cut to the chase, my concerns have to do with the history of international left wing movements as opposed to local populist movements that have not tended to paint issues in as ideological and universal terms as the former. Again for brevity's sake let's say I have come to be wary of the former and, with certain caveats related to Alex Jones/David Dees style xenophobia more interested in learning more about the latter, for example the political career of Huey Long.

At issue in my view is the role that unseen forces play in usurping and subverting the energies unleashed by the traiditional left wing internationalist view of class struggle. It is and has been the case from my reading of history that this internationalist movement is a double edged sword. While it is undoubtedly true that cross border solidarity is a potent weapon in the fight against oppression, and likewise that nationalist divisions have always been used by elites to divide the oppressed, it is also true that the elites themselves, not at all being a unified force in the world (not yet anyway) have used socialist and communist movements to strengthen their hands vis a vis other elites--Britain's alliance with the USSR in WW2 (and one could argue even the very rise of Nazism in Germany) seem to have been designed to preclude a German/Russian continental alliance that would have relegated Great Britain (and France) to second rate powers.

That history (and I admit I have just glossed the surface of it) and the current, seemingly bizarre reluctance of the internationalist left to admit that 9/11 was not the work of Arab Muslims gives many truthers, that is those who see 9/11 and the paradigm of deceit it represents, and not class struggle *necessarily* as their defining political concern, much pause. I myself am of the view that the more universal a movement or cause in scope, the more it has to ensure that it not become--nay, not BE ABLE to become, yet another tyranny, since a universal tyranny is infinitely worse than a group of tyrannies vying for the favor of the people. By the time I gave up on the controlled antiwar movement I had come to the conclusion that to me anyway anarchism and communism are not viable systems of governments, but best seen as political and moral philosophies respectively that can guide humanity as it strives to live in a more just world, one where we implicitly recognize the fact that we literally share everything in terms of our planet and that still values the freedom of the individual (not the individual corporation!) to seek their own path in the world. As ever, the signs seem to point to an elusive "third way", perhaps because of the binary thinking that our mass media encourage. To me 9/11 is the key and the indispensable map on the search for that way. If not us (truthers), after all, then who?