This stuff was distributed by someone affiliated with ny911truth. I believe I saw the individual approach Les Jamieson and ask to put it out and then he did. Frank Morales thankfully saw the damaging nature of it after I brought it to his attention and removed it from the table. This was at the Ralph Schoenman event last Sunday at St. Marks Church.
http://www.truthmove.org/tmp/back2.png
http://www.truthmove.org/tmp/middle.png
http://www.truthmove.org/tmp/chart1.png
http://www.truthmove.org/tmp/chart2.png
This looks to be from http://www.iamthewitness.com or Daryl Bradford Smith, who says 9/11 was a Zionist job.
Here's the question I'm asking myself. Is Les a bad supervisor of events at St. Mark's church, or does he tacitly support this garbage? Why does hate literature keep showing up on the resource table of a 9/11 truth group holding its meetings in a church?
I would like to point out that this bears a uncanny resemblance to the last time one of us TruthMovers found hate literature on that table. We don't get to those meeting very often. Maybe every few months.
Last time we went, many months ago, to see Ralph Schoenmann speak the previous time he was there, I found Criminal Politics FOR SALE on the resource table.
Scans can be viewed here.
http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/12?replies=6
Several months before that I had found CP on the table, and not knowing who put it there, other members of the group and I had a significant amount of conversation, both e-mail and spoken, with Les, as the de facto leader of the group, about the magazine being hateful, and inappropriate. However, this time when a member of the group happened to ask Les if he put it on the table, HE SAID YES, and that it had some interesting articles.
That final point was a matter of great contention, that lead us to the conclusion that Les was not fit to lead the group, and when we expressed that conclusion to him personally, resulted in some really juicy hate mail from other members of the group who asserted that we were infiltrators, said we were trying to take over, and relieved Les of all responsibility in the matter. And then they had a meeting a few weeks later that featured a phone conversation with Eustice Mullins, one of the people responsible for Criminal Politics!?! Does Les Jamieson support Eustice Mullins as a valid contributor to our movement? It would appear so.
We founded TruthMove in order to get away from all that, and also with some sense of responsibility to the movement, as we did not feel that the most prominent 9/11 truth group in NYC was very well representing the movement.
Apparently this continues to be the case. I have personally spoken with two people at these meetings, and heard stories about many others, who took or even bought one of these 'resources', and was very upset and confused about the intentions of the movement. Disinfo doing its job.
So, once again, where is the boundary of this Big Tent. Les? Making my point more clearly, while one could argue, yet again, that Les was simply naive, that's a big problem! Am I just having unreasonable expectations here? We've hosted a couple of those meetings, and saw everything in the room each time. Can I at least say this guy is lazy to the point of negligence?
Criticizing 'Les Jamieson' has a long history. I gave up that waste of time over a year ago now. I don't recommend that we engage in it here. These things have a tendency to end up over at 911researchers.com, where they have different reasons for attacking Les that I don't endorse. Les is an institution. He will not go away, but can only be marginalized for his behavior.
In spite of himself, Les has contributed a great deal to our efforts in many ways. But in my eyes, he's stuck in 9/11 truth 2003. We needed a Big Tent back then, because we were few and desperate. 9/11 truth 2007 is a bit more founded and focused. Everyone sees that lines are being drawn between the active foundation of our cause, and those who would distract us, or have been distracted. The tent has been shrinking as those purely invested in our core priorities, make it more clear that certain things are simply not consonant with a movement for truth.
Hate is not a part of the 9/11 truth movement. In fact this movement crosses all demographic and regional boundary lines. And speculative research, our 9/11 oddities, should not be excluded by any means, but must be viewed for what they are. That's all. No big drama here. Hate speech is hate speech, and poorly founded speculation is not the truth.
No flame wars intended here. Most of the people involved already don't have any great appreciation for us. We've been keeping our distance. But TruthMove is only sitting under a global tent, and Damn It!, Eustice Mullins is a bigot, and Les Jamieson has no excuse for his actions.
But this will all blow over for him as it always has.
Edit: This is a controversial step I've taken representing our side of that story. But we are as committed now as we were then to exposing the fallacies of those who would allow the promotion of hatred along side the truth. We also recognize that many well meaning activists have only heard the other side of this story, whatever it is, and may have been mislead as to our intentions. That whole thing didn't go well for anyone involved, and my own actions were not perfect. But I stand behind my intentions in each case. Les has demonstrated at least tacit approval of morally reprehensible sources. And no, Les is not naive!
Ironically, it was Dave VonKleist who most dramatically stated, "Where is your line in the sand?" Great question for us all at this point.
Although I no longer attend Les Jamieson events I do appreciate hearing what's going on around town. It's true that there should not be a place in 9/11 truth for hateful materials, I would go further and say that there should not even be any focus on external enemies. 'The movement', such as it is, should be focused on mass education. Of course there's gray area there but I don't think 9/11 truth's mission is to make people scared and paranoid. A better focus is educated and active.
There are two common sidetracking issues that come up in any group, sex (not really a problem amongst truthers) the other is External Enemies (infiltrators!, NWO! etc.). For a very interesting read on that topic see Clay Shirky's "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy". http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
Something else I found while browsing 911truthSeattle is the '9/11 Truth Community Hub Manual May, 2007' which bears Les's name. Might provide insight to self-appointed leaders mindset. http://www.911truthseattle.org/TruthersVoice/Truth...
Thanks JV and welcome to the board. I very much agree on the topic of focusing on external cabals/enemies who we must supposedly "purge" and "destroy." This is a very traditional simplification and it allows people to limit themselves from questioning their own psychology and the cultural values of society as a whole. I think it's best demonstrated by the NWO-Libertarian crowd who only scream of the CFR, Bilderberger, Federal Reserve, etc. yet promote xenophobic nationalism and extreme free market capitalism while calling environmental issues "hoaxes."
Yes, it's interesting how so many "truthers" have become Ron Paul zombies.
What can we do about this?
It looks like McKinney may run with the Greens for president. If so, she may override the RP Zombie effect since due to her positions on 9/11. The Libertarians won't like her one bit, but won't be able to deny her 9/11 work.
But otherwise, whenever I see RP posts I add my 2c. Those can add up, but essays are probably one of the best ways to make change. The fact is, the vast majority of RP zombies haven't done their homework and don't understand anything about orgs like the UN except to see them as "world government," and will appreciate seeing the larger context, even if they cannot let go. A single essay exposing the unfortunate flaws of RP on a site like this, picked up on 911review.com, oilempire.us, stj and posted at blogger, will reach almost everyone.
TruthAction, WeAreChange, etc. all have some good people and some not so good . . . one imagines, anyway. It's important to reach people doing good & sincere stuff and pull them out and praise them. At the same time, critique the problems in the group.
Even Prisonplanet had to come out and reject the pods once that issue had reached critical mass, even though it had previously supported the hoax. So change can happen.
TruthAction, WeAreChange, etc. all have some good people and some not so good . . . one imagines, anyway. It's important to reach people doing good & sincere stuff and pull them out and praise them. At the same time, critique the problems in the group.
As we know or have now met many of these people on the local scene we are aware that there are well intentioned people in all of these groups. And on a personal basis, I have been doing what you suggested. When I meet or talk to someone reasonable from one of these groups, it has come to not be surprising when they don't know much about the past actions of others in the group, the group itself, or those the group supports. People just don't do their homework. So I try to be cooperative, reasonable, and offer them some missing pieces of the picture. You know how touchy that can be.
We recently had someone write to us telling us that they liked our presentation, but wanted to know how we are funded. While that happens to be be made clear on our Donation page, we respect the question. It shows some savvy regarding legitimacy. This person is showing that he is skeptical, and does not easily offer his trust. He wants to know who's involved behind the scenes. Who's really making the decisions. Who has authority. Important questions in light of the history of progressive movement infiltration by mainstream interests.
But back to the point of my post above. There seems to be a very strong conservative wing of the movement building around essentially Libertarian/Objectivist values. I'm not sure this is really just more of the 'bit tent', and its not really disinfo. Its is a pre-existing movement, taking on the issue of 9/11 truth, viewing it entirely through the lens of their ideology, and getting a lot of publicity. The video I posted above is just a publicity stunt. Its certainly not educational.
Now, the movement is certainly about conservation of what is best in our culture, but that can only happen with unified creative progression away from our present circumstance. More of the same won't work. Running away from global realities won't work. Its no longer possible to 'isolate' yourself anymore. The pollution, cultural degradation, and conflict will find you wherever you go. Our comfort is built on less comfort for others. And it is people all over the world, communicating over the internet, who have made it clear that there is a unified concern for the future of humanity. And that we are going to have to start having some very honest discussions if we are to steer away from destruction.
Basically, the core of this movement needs a bigger voice. At present, it seems that a minority wing of the movement is gaining more attention with big words, and raw publicity, than we are able to draw with a reasoned approach. This is rather predictable in some ways, but we have to keep in mind that a larger part of the population is looking for sources of information that are less explicitly ideological.
NYC has been a liberal city for a long time. Not that there hasn't been a sincere effort to change that. But the diversity of this city has always kept it from getting too traditional. In this environment it is troubling to find that TruthMove is now the only progressive organization promoting 9/11 truth in NYC.
TruthMove is now the only progressive organization promoting 9/11 truth in NYC.
You see, that would make a great essay topic, on the question of why this is so.
I've seen the right-wing pick up those whose egos are in constant need, give them the podium and the audience they so desire, and completely control them that way, moving them from one rt wing venue or radio show to another to sell crap via the "expert."
One issue is that the racist and anti-semitic groups have pushed very hard from early on to control territory - i.e., how dare you question that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon - and garner the support of 9/11 groups, like AFP. Lots of groups want to ride on the coattails of 9/11 efforts to gain traffic and make money. The movement is an easy target for orgs like the anti-tax groups to gather up the icon speakers and pay them a little bit of money to take audiences and grow their own groups. Sites like the Power Hour were probably instrumental in making Von Kleist over $1 mil. on In Plane Site and they demonize the UN as world government.
One difference is that the left seems to value content and credibility (even to the point where the many left gatekeepers are so far into credentials that the columnists automatically consider anyone with enough letters after their name unassailable), while much of the right and anti-semitic groups are into slick marketing and shameless promotion for a buck, regardless of content, a torches-at-the-gates approach.
And somewhere mixed in there is probably funding to tank us to the public on both ends.
I see why well-meaning people get demoralized. It always seems like the ego and money-motivated are ones who end up with the most support and acknowledgment.
TruthMove is now the only progressive organization promoting 9/11 truth in NYC.
I bet NY911Truth probably considers themselves progressive, but some of the materials and evidence they have promoted have shown otherwise, as well as their lack of unifying and incorporating reasonable people and new ideas.
I've attended a few meetings of NYC 9/11 Truth this past month, and I don't recall seeing any hate literature there. Hopefully this means they aren't distributing it anymore, if indeed they were distributing hate literature in the past.
Alas, in the 9/11 Truth movement, it seems to be almost impossible to avoid indirect connections to Jew-haters and other extreme right wingers. For example, the video "9/11 Mysteries" starts off with a promotion of "Painful Deceptions" by Eric Hufschmid, whose website is full of rabid Jew-hating rants (although, from what I've heard, "Painful Deceptions" itself does not contain any overt hate propaganda -- I have not yet seed the latter video myself). By the way, does anyone here know if anyone has contacted the maker of "9/11 Mysteries" about this?
To counteract this problem, I think it might be helpful if the TruthMove website could publish some statements against racism and against anti-semitism -- statements which display a genuine, thought-out opposition to the hate groups' ideology, not just something along the lines of "we don't want to be associated it because it's bad for our image." Such an essay on a 9/11 Truth site could serve two purposes: (1) to counteract the efforts of those hate groups that may be trying to use the 9/11 Truth movement as a recruiting ground, and (2) as something to point to when people accuse the 9/11 Truth movement as a whole of being anti-semitic. For both these purposes, an essay which actually refutes common anti-semitic claims would be far more effective than just a statement that we don't want to be associated with anti-semites.
Anyhow, I question the wisdom of TruthMove cutting off ties with Les's group. Admittedly I'm new to all of this and perhaps just being naive. But does TruthMove have the resources to do, on its own, the kind of outreach that Les is doing, e.g. holding conferences like the one coming up this weekend?
I see nothing wrong with TruthMove being a separate organization, since it seems to me that the 9/11 Truth movement here in NYC is indeed big enough to consist of more than one organization. But, if TruthMove does not have the resources to compete with Les's group, then it seems to me that it would be best to try to keep lines of communication open and continue to try to persuade him to put the movement's best foot forward.
Have others here tried to do the latter? If so, with what results, on issues other than the hate literature thing?
I question the wisdom of TruthMove cutting off ties with Les's group. Admittedly I'm new to all of this and perhaps just being naive.
Mind if I agree with you on that second part? :) Many of your observations and the things you suggest are a part of the history of this project. Some of them on this forum. You could not at this point recognize why we are more disappointed than any at the present condition of the movement in NYC. Please try to respect the direct experience of all our participants.
Everyone has tried everything. All letters have been written. Since we split into all the local groups about a year ago, many sincere people have tried to facilitate some kind of unity. We left ny911truth because we could not accomplish this within the group. The differences were quite obvious at the time, and as you suggest, it may have been good that we all went our own directions. We each have very different approaches. But at present it appears that none of us trust one another.
Yes, Les has many connections and resources, but to what end? Hosting Jim Fetzer? TruthMove is explicitly opposed to the 'big tent' hypothesis, which suggests that unity in numbers is more important than unity in principle. We are not trying to unify with some of these people as they are invested in something totally different.
And yet I'd like to think that we would all be willing to sign some kind of statement against racism in the movement. If we didn't name names, and were real responsible about it, we might be able to find some kind of unity in this way. Good suggestion.
Hmm, I wasn't thinking in terms of a statement that a whole bunch of people would sign, though that is indeed a good idea, too.
I was thinking more in terms of an essay that maybe a few of us could write, whose aim would be to debunk some of the more common anti-semitic claims and perhaps the more irrational kinds of "conspiracy theory" in general. (Anti-semitism and irrational forms of "conspiracy theory" overlap heavily, e.g. in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion.")
But it would be desirable to have a more concise statement of principle as well, to be signed by a larger group of people.
Why is Les still handing out the flyer with the "fake bin Laden" video frames right on the front? I'd suggest someone who is close to him to ask this question? This sensationalistic piece of "evidence" was thoroughly debunked 6 months ago:
Taking the fat out of the fat bin Laden confession video http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id372.html
Incorrect aspect ratio:
Aspect ratio corrected:
I don't think it was debunked, even though a claim has been made to that effect -- Ed Haas of the muckraker went on to submit a RfC to NIST with Fetzer, Reynolds and Wood. The very fact that it is difficult to tell if it has been debunked properly underscores that it is not good evidence to use at all, and generally is a magnet for people to see us as nutty.
We actually think that this stuff works to select for people who can't think critically and to keep us surrounded by those indiviuals, rather than people who are more able to think critically. LC worked this way -- selects for people who gravitate toward exciting hoaxes all the time.
Early on, a lot of people were excited by this finding and used it, but later much stronger physical evidence came along (versus the evidence of things like the Stand down, etc). To still be using this prominently by anyone who has been doing this for years is ridiculous. There is far better evidence to essentially say the same thing.
Even today in the NYTIMES of all things -
"Mr. Ziercke said the men belong to a terrorist group that police suspect has “close ties†to Al Qaeda, though he did not offer evidence of those links. Counterterrorism experts here expressed wariness, noting that in almost every major terrorist attack or suspected plot since the Sept. 11 attacks, the role of Al Qaeda has been raised, but rarely substantiated." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/world/europe/06g...
truthmod wrote:
"Why is Les still handing out the flyer with the "fake bin Laden" video frames right on the front? I'd suggest someone who is close to him to ask this question? This sensationalistic piece of "evidence" was thoroughly debunked 6 months ago:"
I'm not close to Les, but I'm in process of writing up some suggestions to Les for improving his pamphlet. I'll add this issue to my critique.
I don't think it was debunked, even though a claim has been made to that effect -- Ed Haas of
Well, was at least the claim that the "fat Bin Laden" is not the real Bin Laden debunked? If not, that's news to me--please explain.
We actually think that this stuff works to select for people who can't think critically and to keep us surrounded by those indiviuals, rather than people who are more able to think critically. LC worked this way -- selects for people who gravitate toward exciting hoaxes all the time.
Key point here, certain people gravitate to easy answers--Pentagon holes, CD, fat Bin Laden, etc. Most of this stuff does not require you to build a foundation of historical or contextual understanding.
Diane,
As I suggested above, this has been done before by people inside and outside the group. The first version of this flyer was created and debated? while we were still a part of the group. We expressed a number of concerns at the time, but they were over-ruled by people less critically engaged in the debate than ourselves. That flyer, and Les' resistance to any other alternative, was one of the reasons we left. We felt that it poorly represented our own concerns about this issue, and didn't want to be associated with it.
All that being said, I applaud your willingness to try again. Most have said to me in this case that maybe Les just hasn't heard it from the right person. I keep hoping that this is true even after the latest failure to reach him. I'm most interested in the response you receive, if any. Please let us know how this goes. We sincerely hope for improvement over there even as we do not expect it.
You must log in to post.