Video: CHANGE Welcomes Zbigniew Brzezinski
Nuff respect goes out to Luke for having the balls to do this! http://the911insidejob.blip.tv/file/205293/
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Video: CHANGE Welcomes Zbigniew Brzezinski (18 posts)
-
Posted 17 years ago #
-
We get it...
Yes, Luke has done a lot for the movement. So has Les. I've always gone out of my way to represent that when offering any criticism. But the good things these people do don't make their bad decisions go away. While we should offer one another positive support as much as possible, with the big picture in mind we also need to keep each other in check.
TruthMove thrives on criticism. We haven't received nearly enough. We most often go out of our way to respond, and make changes. We are trying to remain adaptive, as people more qualified than ourselves continue to offer us suggestions that we take very seriously. And in fact, we take the logical criticism from those who don't support us just as seriously.
But we haven't found others in the movement to be so open and willing to debate content and strategy. In fact, we have specifically found local movement leaders to be rather dogmatic in their prioritization of information and strategy. Try telling Les that he's doing anything wrong, and see what happens. Try telling Luke that blaming Zbig for 9/11 was not a responsible way to represent the movement.
Rarely does anyone ever say these things. The big tent of support kicks in, and everyone wants to look like a team player. But then whose team are you on? I'm not on any team for which Jim Fetzer of Eustice Mullins are honored guests.
This is difficult. I get along just fine with Luke, and most of these local folks. I would say that this is all business, and nothing personal. But then this is a very personal business. I wish I could assume that I was able to criticize the actions of nyc911truth, and still be cool with the people when I seen them. But people's feelings always get in the way.
I hope for the best.
Posted 17 years ago # -
A perfect example of the 'big tent' mentality
Here's the first comment on the Zbig video at 911Blogger.
<BLOWN OPPORTUNITY
THE NAME CALLING WILL NEVER ADVANCE THE CAUSE.
MANY POINTED QUESTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED AND AWKWARD RESPONSES COULD HAVE BEEN RECORDED FOR THE WORLD TO SEE.
BUT INTERUPTING THE ENTIRE EVENT WITH NAME CALLING LIKE 'SCUM' AND 'NEW WORLD ORDER' REFERENCES WILL NOT DRAW NEW SKEPTICS.>
And now here's that persons response after they realized that it was Luke they he was referring to.
<OH SHOOT!
I JUST WATCHED THE REST OF THE VID AFTER HE CALLED ZBIG 'SCUM' AND REALIZED IT WAS LUKE FROM NYC.
MAJOR PROPS ON BEATING SECURITY DOWN THE STREET.
IF I COULD YANK MY 1ST POST I WOULD BUT THE EDIT FEATURE EXPIRED.
LUKE IS ENTITLED TO CALL ZBIG A FEW NAMES AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.
(9/11 BLOGGER: YANK MY 1ST POST. THANX.)>
So somehow this person is not embarrassed to admit that their point only applies if the person being criticized isn't someone popular in the movement? He just takes Luke off the hook, and tossed his concerns to the side like they didn't matter at all. And there is only one other criticism of the disruption out of over 60 comments. Nearly everyone else said something about how "this rocks", or that Luke has big balls.
No one is questioning that this took some bravery. But that one critique made a good point.
<Whatever happened at that speech was as brave as it was counterproductive. For every person who learns of the 9/11 movement, a new investigation is one step closer; but for every person who learns of it like this, it will take that much more time to wear down their extra-extra resistance.>
Unfortunately it seems that many feels as though mutual support were more important than than our goals. These goals are not easy to achieve in any way. There is a lot of discipline around specific strategy involved. What's best for the movement may not be what's easiest or most fun for its participants.
Why does criticism appear to be unwelcome? Why can't we assume that Luke wants to do better next time, and might benefit from some critical suggestions? In some ways, as much as we all need affirmation for may efforts, cheering is not very active support. Thoughtful critique is certainly more participation. And we should all hope to be growing from one another's understanding and experience.
In fact the criticism is essential. Back to the scientific method, in which we seek to disprove a hypothesis by all our means. If we take action, our strategy becomes open to critique. That critique has the potential to indicate that our strategy is incomplete or ineffective, and that our hypothesis about how to act may need to be modified. Ultimately we hope to develop strong theories for promotional strategy. But getting there necessarily involves a developmental attitude. Not always getting it right, and learning from the experience.
So I suppose I hope that Luke does better next time. And that would be hoping that he has peers and mentors who will offer him some strategic suggestions.
Posted 17 years ago # -
It seemed that Luke, as he progressed into a diatribe, essentially exhibited a desperation which runs rampant within the movement. The absolute need to belittle those who are the kings and queens of belittlement. The diatribe allowed Z and the audience to regain access to their comfort zone. The audience especially was relieved, and once again, the heckler was shouldering the audiences suffering, as if he was used to that pattern, that paradigm.
It certainly took nerve, but there was no balance. Can we encourage balance?
Posted 17 years ago # -
i also feel that luke started off solid and rational but as he became more belligerent it allowed everyone in the audience to think "oh yeah just another one of those rude, immature, whacko 9/11 conspiracy types." i'm sure it wasn't easy standing up there and challenging Zbig, the audience, and security, but stunts like these should be done according to a calm, cold, calculated plan.
i appreciate the nerve and the effort, but hopefully next time, whoever tries one of these stunts can maintain their composure.
whatever you may think of the term "new world order," it is likely to turn off many people who would otherwise listen to reasonable arguments and questions.
Posted 17 years ago # -
The last post on this subject was four months ago; however, the same type of actions have been advanced since and by groups like NY CHANGE. I will say though that these types of actions and the shouting of "911 was an inside job" and so on serves to self destruct our movement without us even knowing it. When I watch a video like this, it is utterly embarrassing. Is there not a better way for us to do this? Of course there is!
Posted 17 years ago # -
Yes, it takes guts to do this. It would also take guts to march into Fallujah and kill everybody you see. Guts should not be confused with brains. That Luke chooses to put this online as a matter of pride shows how brainy he is.
Either ask a strong question of Brzezinski or scream "scum" like a maniac (I recommend option 1). When you do both, asking the question and then preventing him from answering because you continue screaming, you look like a fool, you give everyone present reason to think of you as a fool and to sympathize with Brzezinski.
There's no shame in not bringing off a perfect performance in one of these public attempts to show up the authorities; I've failed several times myself. Lacking self-reflection to this degree is shameful, however.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Digging through the old posts I see. :)
This was a response to their very first such publicity stunt. At the time we were all surprised. But that wore off quickly as their "scum chart" campaign became their big attention grabber. Some of these confrontations have been more successful than others. Some of them have, in my personal opinion, reflected poorly on the movement.
Nick, no need to intimate that Luke is stupid. I hate to shut down any humor on this forum as we need it, but these kinds of digs end up being fodder for those who would like to suggest that this isn't a reasonable conversation we are having here. And then I end up having to explain to someone why the rules don't apply to some.
Regarding "9/11 Was an Inside Job". That was the rally cry of the movement for a long time. Now many are deciding it would be best to retire it. We agree. Some always thought it was a poor choice of words. Our banner sign said the same, and rather than explain why that made sense for a time, and worked for us on the street, I will say that we just added a question mark to the sign, which works better. And that we will soon be making a new sign and finally retiring that statement from TruthMove promotions.
Let's not get to heavy into what WAC has been. They are in a period of...change. There will be an internal response to the events this 9/11, and we have no impact on the outcome. Let's wait a couple of weeks and see what happens.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Let's be straight here. I am not "intimating" Luke is stupid, and I'm not inside his head to know. I am observing that Luke engages in (and leads others to engage in) behavior that is stupid, obviously so, insofar as its impact is destructive of its supposed intent. If I can see and describe how outsiders (such as the crowd at the Brzezinski lecture) see it, then this may be good and useful. My observation is not an insult and it is not personal, it is descriptive. Please do not give in to the sophistry of those who seek to evade critique by misinterpreting it as "insult" or "personal attack."
Furthermore, after the destruction of the credible truth movement in New York, which you witnessed, it is ridiculous to give these people the "well they worked hard" for the cause credit. What have they accomplished? Made sure that 9/11 skepticism is associated with Loose Change rather than Nafeez Ahmed? Shifted talk to the "New World Order" instead of capitalism? Come up with plainly false scenarios of "what really happened" on 9/11? Put a great number of frauds on stage? Endorsed the Ron Paul campaign?
Posted 17 years ago # -
Furthermore, after the destruction of the credible truth movement in New York, which you witnessed, it is ridiculous to give these people the "well they worked hard" for the cause credit. What have they accomplished? Made sure that 9/11 skepticism is associated with Loose Change rather than Nafeez Ahmed? Shifted talk to the "New World Order" instead of capitalism? Come up with plainly false scenarios of "what really happened" on 9/11? Put a great number of frauds on stage? Endorsed the Ron Paul campaign?
Can't really argue with this. Plus, the argument that "they're getting more people involved," is false, as the 2004 conferences drew more people than attended both the WAC and NY911Truth events of 2007.
The truthaction.org (11th of the month) is something that is actually kind of exciting though. Even if it has mobilized many Ron Paul supporters and no plane fans, at least it has been organized by cosmos, who has a grip on the true priorities of the movement. And from the pictures I've seen, it actually looks like very diverse and some more progressive oriented people are involved.
As many have noted, the effect of all the BS (intentional and unintentional) is often to make people like us give up, not want to be involved, and disappear. It's like, "If this is 9/11 truth (Ron Paul, blackshirts, "SCUM," and Loose Change), then I don't want anything to do with it." Sometimes it feels almost impossible to surmount these very visible and manipulative elements, but we must continue to try to appeal to reason and compassion. Don't let them define what the truth movement is (from the WAC voiceover: "THE LARGEST TRUTH MOVEMENT ON THE PLANET").
Posted 17 years ago # -
Come on man. Not necessary.
That Luke chooses to put this online as a matter of pride shows how brainy he is.
So you are in his head enough to know this was a matter of pride? Nick, you implied that Luke is stupid here. And my response was quite chill because it wasn't that big a deal. My thoughts about some of the actions of WAC are quite clear elsewhere on this forum. And the whole tenor of discussion here is not at all about evading critique. Quite the opposite.
Furthermore, no one here is putting forth the defense that 'they worked hard.' The discussion here seems to be more about critiquing the outward results of their actions than any of the individuals involved other than Luke or Alex Jones. In this discussion we should keep in mind that WAC is a whole bunch of people. And many of them would be sympathetic to many of the concerns we are expressing here. So at present it doesn't serve our interest to suggest that they are all of one mind. Consider writing your posts with the thought that WAC people might read them and be encouraged to move in a positive direction.
Nick, I know you well enough in person to have a sincere appreciate for your kind of pointed humor. As I said, we need all the humor we can get. But this whole discussion about WAC and NY911Truth, is one of the most touchy conversations we have had here. And I would say that people unfamiliar with your character might interpret some of your written humor differently than those who know you. That being said, we certainly agree with your critical comments. They are echoed by many others here on our forum.
Everyone here is doing their best right now to separate their frustrations from their critiques. We are free to talk about both here. But that takes some candor in distinguishing between the two. I'm having a hard time with this myself, while also trying to be fair in moderating the forum. I think I'm being a bit overly cautious around these issues as a result, but I don't mean to step on anyone toes.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Fine.
I know it's a matter of pride from his expression after he gets away and on the subway.
Regardless... as you say.
Posted 17 years ago # -
CHANGE does their "CFR SCUM" demonstration:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11429
Whoa, Tom Foti starts a vehement chant of "ROCKEFELLER DID 911 ROCKEFELLER DID 911..."
Posted 17 years ago # -
Rockefeller did 911? LOL!!
at the 2006 anniversary event Foti distributed a "Not The New York Times" newspaper (the idea of which he plagiarized from Levis) which had a 3-page long-winded treatment on Rockefeller and the international bankers responsible for 911.
suprisingly he did not go into the Knights Templar.
i would like to point out that Zbigniew Brzezinski has been a very outspoken critic of the current direction of US foreign policy. and while it is apparent that many of his ideas for US global hegemony have been adopted by the neo-conservatives - it is an extreme stretch of the imagination to openly accuse him of complicity in 911 or the current direction of US foreign policy.
the current policy is a radical bastardization of Brzezinski's ideas. And he has been quite outspoken in condemning the current actions of this administration.
so - it is yet one more embarassment that 911 Truth activists will launch verbal assault on someone like Brzezinski without knowing and understanding who exactly he is - and what he believes.
i myself find many of Brzezinski's ideas distasteful - and fully reflective of the american arrogance of manifest destiny that we now see being extended to the world stage. i do not support Brzezinski's ideas. but - this 'action' against him was embarassing and served no purpose - other than self promotion.
Posted 17 years ago # -
One way this thing went south was when people started shielding the administration by saying they don't matter, we have to go after the "top levels." The architects, rather than the engineers. But the architects are always presumed: in the world as seen by Foti/Luke, CFR and the Rockefellers, because they (and the Rothschilds) are automatically responsible for everything. You don't need to lay out the case, apparently quotes from random Rockefellers from 50 years ago stating that they want to rule the world will do.
First you need to lay out the case against the Bush regime personnel (not everyone in the government) as the engineers. And you need to do so cautiously, within the available facts, shooting for probable cause standards. This is actually doable, and the evidence is visible or close to the surface. It is the only possible and necessary first step toward ultimately securing the architects.
And the maximo faction treats this either a) as boring - let's have some pods & flashes or b) treason! You're "LIHOP," you're partisan, you're a gatekeeper unless you always push a maximal approach (even if it's remote from reality).
What evidence do we have pointing to the CFR, other than that it's one of the most influential clubs for arguing out and setting the general agenda among the elites? Was it a Rockefeller doing nothing in that school, or in the White House bunker, or delaying arrival at the NMCC, or arranging the wargames, or supervising the response to 9/11, or creating the cover-up?
Luke/Foti is a cult as bad as any other. But never forget who handed power to them, and to all of the worst cultists and presumed disinfo artists who have arrived to screw up New York.
Posted 17 years ago # -
I keep on thinking that pushing the maximal approach has much to do with the thrill factor, the high that one gets from it. If one feels totally marginal while working on the 9/11 Truth business, then the most equal and opposite marginal enemy would be something like the CFR. It may be mostly about what they know.
Posted 17 years ago # -
What they know - try to get into a rational discussion about it with them. What is the CFR or the Federal Reserve, what's the real role of Bilderberger? You won't have a minute to claim anything less than that these groups are purely evil (in a Satanic-cartoon sense) and all-powerful before you are accused of defending them.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Exactly, that's what they know. They know their marginalization, that is primary, and it has to have an evil and absolute source. That source needs to be marginal (in this case, elite) as well, then belittled as scum.
Basically, I'm trying to say their approach is more about empowerment than clarity. It was bound to happen in a movement so continually maligned as 9/11 Truth.
Posted 17 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.