TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Dubious . . . dubious . . . dubious (9 posts)

1. Rajjpuut
   Member

   I am very interested in TruthMove but highly skeptical about the founders and their purposes.

   The term "international truth movement" is a lofty ideal but much of what I've seen at the site sounds like it's in service of the U.S. of A.'s Democratic Party and nothing more.

   As pretty much a lifelong Libertarian, I find the "loyalists" of both major parties to be absolute asses who don't seem to know the differences perceived between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber are totally insignificant. Both groups are power-seekers and are interchangeable over history. Witness the Dixiecrat "uprising immediately gutting the traditional southern powerbase of the Democrats and gradually shifting the conservative Democratic Party more associated with traditional values to Urban-based liberalism; while the Republican Party took over the conservative mantle. It's only when one Party claims both the center and the traditional American ideals that its star maintains power for any significant time.

   If you want to find an idiot ignorant of history and its meanings, look up any conservative or liberal; if you're looking for a bigger idiot and a more dangerous and cancerous one find an ultra-liberal or extreme- conservative. Your supposed search for international truth will only be hindered by association with Republican and Democratic labeling as well as conservative and liberal ones.

   On the positive side, when it's allowed to flourish, Republicanism has always concentrated on the rights of the individual as espoused in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and on OPPORTUNITY and upward mobility; while Democratic ideals have always stressed getting the voice of the masses heard and EDUCATING those masses. We Libertarians believe in the importance of both these jobs while we seek minimizing the size and taxes of government and guaranteeing freedom by insisting upon strong national defense . . . but, this is NOT the place to argue ANY of these battles . . . this site should truly promulgate the revelation of unaddorned, fully disclosed truth with absolutely NO ideologic concerns allowed.

   I wish TruthMove the BEST!

   RPV

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. giveback
   

   If you assert that this is not the place to argue any of these battles, it is inconsistent of you to go ahead and do it here.

   Show us the right way, not the way you despise. Please.

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. christs4sale
   Administrator

   Rajjpuut,

   Please give some examples of any administrator of this site endorsing anyone within or campaign by the Democratic Party. I think democratic and democracy have become dirty words in the 9/11 movement where there is very large presence of right-wing ideology. I do not think that the Democratic Party wants REAL democracy in any shape or form. Also, when I say democracy, I do not mean it like "the US is spreading democracy," which is a code word for a system that protects class privilege and specific western economic interests.

   To me, this is an issue that should be discussed by activists far more than it is, especially amongst those activists who are interested in political assassinations, conspiracies and political blackmail. An effective democracy to me is a system where people have effective participatory means to make the decisions that effect them. Also, the power is in the masses and is not given to representative minority. If you believe that political assassination and political blackmail are problems within our country, then by default you can not believe in having a small minority represent the people. It is too easy blackmail, bribe, threaten, compromise or bullet 500 or 600 representatives into what an elite minority wants them to do.

   Representative government was what the means of communication allowed two hundred years ago, but I do not think that it takes a genius to see that it is obsolete now. To paraphrase Jefferson, we should have a revolution every 19 years because it should be up to each generation to define what its own liberation is. Another good Jefferson quote on this is "I see no safe repository for information [and I am adding decision-making power to that] other than in the hands of the people."

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. truthmover
   Administrator

   A bit of truth and a bit of rhetoric

   Thanks for posting. As the Forum Guidelines make clear, we
   

   welcome reasonable critique. Although you don't really support your first line very well, and that doesn't suggest a very reasonable approach.

   However, your second line bears a response. We are just a 
   

   handful of core members, each people organically drawn to the project by its breadth, and respect for historical accuracy. While we have begun our growth as a local action group, we hope to extend the premise of a general Truth Movement as we grow. We are trying to set an example of what a Truth Movement organization might look like, and recognize that the fundamental unifying priority of informed consent and the inalienable rights required for its realization, are of international significance. We think there should be an international truth movement, and are working to promote the concept. An opportunity for broad unity lies in our mutual respect for certain basic democratic values.

    As you note, our focus is primarily domestic. That is certainly 
   

   appropriate as we feel that people should be focusing on their communities as they spread a very global message. We are experts of our own experience. But as we grow, we hope to connect with other similar organizations around the world. You have to start somewhere, and its usual at home. And let's face it, this country and this Administration are the biggest problem in the world right now.

    Now as far as Libertarianism goes, I find it hard to generalize 
   

   as I've found that Libertarians are quite diverse in their concerns, motivations, and strategies. But I can speak from some experience, obviously acknowledging the limitation in that. Unfortunately, in my experience I haven't found that Libertarians are able to argue their own ideology very well. The reason being that I have found several fundamental internal contradictions.

    For instance, Libertarians will argue that we should not 
   

   intervene in the affairs of other countries, and yet this isolationist view is totally out of touch with the realities we face. You might look into the purpose of the CIA or NSA. While Libertarians argue for deregulation, the rest of the world is absorbing our pollution. And we make a lot more per capita than anyone else. And our corporations all over the world are exploiting labor so that we can have cheap products. Hey buddy! Look what you are wearing. American privilege rides on the misery of others all around the world that has only increased as our government has given international corporate growth top priority, far over and above any concern for the people. So how do you want it? Less privilege, less products, slower economy, and more liberty around the world, or just more privilege for you and yours.

     So then liberty, yes. But for whom? This always brings me 
   

   back to the part of Libertarianism about doing no harm to others in the exercising of your personal liberty. Well, you better hide your eyes whenever you see a world map, because once again, so much of what we have comes at the expense of people we never have to see or even think about. Well, I would assume that any honest Libertarian would.

     No ideological concerns allowed? Wow, tall order. We are 
   

   trying to be as accurate and responsible as we can in our presentation of facts, and our attempts to contextualize them. But we aren't trying to be librarians. This project was born from a couple of us just trying to think of the most broad unifying concept we could think of. But we didn't just have the concept, we made something of it and started taking action to promote it. And deciding to put something down in words, or take those words out on the street, we have committed to certain themes and issues that we found most important. So then our critical decisions about how to do all of this were personal in some ways, and yet strategically aimed at the most broad of intentions.

     So that's something to chew on. We are certainly interested 
   

   in discussion with anyone who can expand our views of anything relevant to this project. But you might want to steer clear of the invective, as it will get your comments deleted.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. Victronix
   Member

   I do not think that the Democratic Party wants REAL democracy in any shape or form.

   Individuals at the local level can sometimes bring real democracy and so convince average people that the above statement is false. In reality, those at the top control the agenda and for them that's probably primarily about serving their corporate paymasters to somehow bring about some form of "democracy" better than the other corporate slave. I expect the corpse-looking politicos are real people that believe what they are doing is right. But what they're doing is driving us toward total destruction.

   Our elections are boiled down to blockbuster movies from the corporations, nothing more. They are extremely powerful propaganda tools. I suspect that nothing in the history of the world has ever had such power to control so many as the corporate media.

   Anyone still debating the "elections" or who will win or why, doesn't get it. If anyone real happened to get in there they'd be assassinated.

   Posted 17 years ago #
6. Rajjpuut
   Member

   Bah, humbug!!!

   What invective? If I can't call a spade a spade as I see it (liberals and conservatives playing the tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber game; and both idiotically thinking they have the "handle on truth") then your site is not after truth but mere political correctness and is totally misnamed.

   And if YOU can't take honest criticism like that, what the hell good are you? There's my big "invective," I used the word "hell" so kick me off the site. Truth is truth and invective is invective and I've given you the former and none of the latter: grow up and take wing and grow into something powerful and kick off the caterpillarness of political correctness.

   Posted 17 years ago #
7. Rajjpuut
   Member

   Wow, I must have done something right . . . I just realized that three site administrators responded to my very first post on the website. Me thinkest they do protest too much. So I repeat my criticism, the site seems like more like a tool for the "outs" (the Democrats) against the "ins" the Republican than it does like a site dedicated to helping me and the masses not only understand truth but, more importantly, to get some action on that truth. I'm not convinced that's of crucial import to the founders, but I'll be the first to applaud any serious action they make. God bless us, everyone.

   Bob

   Posted 17 years ago #
8. yfhahn
   Administrator

   This criticism...

   Seems a little strange to me as the members here are out every weekend helping people wake up to the truth...

   Posted 17 years ago #
9. truthmod
   Administrator

   Rajjpuut--you have brought in this line of argument to nearly every post you've made on our site. You seem like the one obsessed with partisanship. Maybe you just don't like our stance on Ron Paul and libertarianism perhaps? Perhaps that's your side of partisanship, yet you don't see it because you're in it. Libertarianism is usually classified as an ultra-right wing ideology, so it really sounds like you're complaining not that we're partisan but that we're not on your side.

   But you're damn right--we do admire true progressive liberals like Martin Luther King Jr, Robert Kennedy (in his later years), the populist revolutionaries of Latin America, etc, etc. Do you, or do you just think they wanted to institute some sore of bleeding heart welfare state?

   Do you believe in equality or the right of individuals to assert their power over others and then use their advantage to further deceive and consolidate their power? How do you propose we get to an idyllic state of libertarianism from where we're at now? Do libertarians talk about media reform or campaign finance reform or dismantling the "free market" corporate oligarchy?

   Here's a few posts for you to see some of our ideas on libertarianism and Ron Paul:

   http://www.truthmove.org/forum/tags/libertarians

   As you've probably noticed, we have expressed much concern about Ron Paul as a candidate and libertarianism in general. This doesn't mean we don't recognize the positive aspects of some libertarian policies (right to privacy, personal freedom, anti-war, etc).

   And why are we "Democratic?" Because we promote environmental awareness and sustainability? Because we believe in equality and justice? Do you think global warming and the ecological crisis are hoaxes/unimportant?

   Me thinkest they do protest too much. So I repeat my criticism, the site seems like more like a tool for the "outs" (the Democrats) against the "ins" the Republican than it does like a site dedicated to helping me and the masses not only understand truth but, more importantly, to get some action on that truth.

   How are we helping the Democrats? Would they want anything to do with people who promote the evidence that elements of the US government were complicit in the attacks of 9/11, people who feel that the money needs to be taken out of politics, people who see the whole corporate governmental/media complex as needing to be dismantled?

   We are for the truth.

   Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.