It seems that many of these people envision a movement very different from the one we have. And yet it has become increasingly difficult for these people to differentiate any clear strategic vision of theirs from the general approach of so many others. Can we draw wide support in the existing movement for a strategic approach that excludes many of the movement's most popular voices?
What I have found fascinating is how fast points of view can shift when disinformation is exposed. What happened with Fetzer was a good example. Look at how popular he was early on and how ubiquitous, his voice was -- that vanished, probably over a period of weeks, once he went too far. Most of these guys step over a line in the game is over. Virtually everyone gets it, even if there's the cheerleading buffer of fans around them. Right now, I would say our biggest problems are the people in charge of the 9/11 truth groups who steer everyone into no planes media continuously. They fund those who advocate for no planes, they make media about no planes, and they promote no planes, constantly.
My guess is that Arabesque will come up with a good solution for the topic of this thread. The challenge for the rest of us will be to help amplify that, respectfully, regardless of who does it.
My understanding is that Alex Jones has been promoting David Icke. This is his 'step too far', and now can always be used in the future to discredit him.
I don't think people should take the voices of 9/11 blogger as reality. There are probably a number of people on there who have dual or triple identities and many who post on their cheerlead particular issues intensely, such as no planes and CIT.
What has been amazing to me, is how easily people understand strong from hoax stuff once the case is clearly made to them. Even people I've known who are schizophrenics . . . they get it.
Can we get it done in the middle of a total mess? Or does the most effective strategy take us outside the confines of the 9/11 truth movement?
I think any effective strategy depends primarily on what it is that's most important to you personally, what you are drawn to, what you want to work on everyday. if every time you look at 9/11 stuff you're frustrated and find yourself working on other things, that becomes pretty clear. On the other hand, the goal of the disinformationists, is to turn us away.
One problem in general, is that some people have 24 hours a day of free time. And some of us have to work jobs and have little time.
Ralph Nader's talk at the Commonwealth Club recently stressed the idea that if we could find, in each congressional district, 2000 people to fund just three people working full time to pressure Congress, we could turn everything around 18 months. That's a very carefully considered strategy by someone who has spent their entire career pressuring Congress, and it probably would work.
But that's the kind of thinking we need to be doing around everything, be at 9/11 or anything else. And there isn't much room to consider strategy when we're always focused on coping with disinformation. There needs to be a balance of defense and offense.