The Big Tent Strikes Again - Setting the record straight
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!