Who do you trust, and why?
Truthmod makes a point that should be emphasized. Yes, it was Les Jamieson's "Ready for Mainstream" event. And it appears that he made no comments during the whole proceeding in any effort to temper the wild theories or personal attacks being presented.
His flyers up on the street before the event began with, "What's the best way to commemorate the anniversary of 9/11?" A bit arrogant, wouldn't you say?
Well, attendance was low. In fact it seemed to be mostly those who attend meetings at St. Mark's church and their friends. It doesn't look like this event drew the attendance of people outside the movement. And it seems that its impact is mostly being felt right now within the movement.
So the question at hand is whether we intend to hold Les accountable for this event or not. If this was his first attempt, I'd have nothing to say. Maybe even his third. But please hear the testimony of my experience and so many others. Many of us were not surprised by anything we saw. Upset, but not surprised. In all fairness, Les Jamieson is an adherent to the 'big tent' strategy. According to Alfred Webre this involves presenting all evidence and speculation with the intention that the public will decide for themselves what has merit. Sound lofty for a second, but it practical terms this leads to muddying of the water as people are genuinely confused about which sources have greater logical merit. We present many of the facts, and some of the fallacies regarding 9/11 truth here on TruthMove. But they are kept quite distinctly separate from one another.
To be clear, the strategy here at TruthMove has always involved our critique of the 'big tent.' Principle before association. Broad values before personal interests. Quality before quantity. And on a very basic level, this movement is far too obviously infiltrated for the 'big tent' strategy to be practical. Possibly with very strong moderation, but without it, we find our wells being poisoned.
So, the lack of moderation provided by Les Jamieson over a long period of time, and in many circumstances, has allowed for the poisoning of our well, yet again. If this is merely due to his being convinced that the 'big tent' is the best way to go, then he needs to be held accountable for his poor moderation. However, as this is just the latest example of this behavior, and very much in light of the thousands of constructive e-mails that he has received over the years, and quite apparently ignored, we should consider whether or not this person, very much like Fetzer, has insulated himself from critique.
If so, he has marginalized himself along with the rest. After all that time being attacked by Nico, he's actually ended up supporting the very same people that Nico associates himself with.
WHO DO YOU TRUST??? Who seems reasonable and relatively humble before their values? Who seems to spend most of their time trying to promote the best this movement has to offer? And...Who seem friendly? Concerned citizens have a lot of love for their community.
Les is missing something. And maybe what he is missing disqualifies him as the point man for 9/11 truth in NYC. Pointing to his long service and consistency is moot. You could look to Tarpley for a similar long term commitment gone sour. For some time Les has been promoting the best we have to offer with our worst. He is free to do so. However, he is not free to represent us all as a leader of the movement if his actions serve to undermine our collective efforts.
Something has to change.