Perhaps the follwing will be dismissed as just me being naive. But, given that TruthMove does profess to be concerned about how the 9/11 Truth movement comes across to the general public, including newcomers to the movement, I hope people here won't mind some feedback from a newcomer on how you're coming across. I should also mention that, although I'm new to 9/11 Truth, I've been intermittently involved in other political movements, and various nonpolitical groups too, in the past, so I do have some relevant experience. So, please hear me out.
First, I agree about the importance of putting forward the best evidence and discouraging wild speculation. And I would like to see more groups that focus just on determining the facts of what happened on 9/11, without any larger political agenda. But I would ALSO love to see a more clearly articulated left wing of the 9/11 Truth movement too, as a counterbalance to the Ron Paul crowd and Alex Jones' "New World Order" nuttiness, which seems to have been swallowed whole by We Are Change.
However, so far I have four problems with TruthMove:
First, I'm extremely frustrated that TruthMove has not yet managed to hold regular meetings, or indeed any meetings at all that are announced more than a day or two in advance.
I am glad to see, in the thread "Enough is enough," some recognition of the problem that TruthMove failed to provide an alternative to the other events held this weekend. I hope this means you'll soon start holding meetings and other events. More about this in the "Enough is enough" thread.
Second, although I do understand and agree with the necessity of criticizing bad ideas and behavior, I have to say I'm unnerved by all the speculation here about various people being government agents. In most cases, these accusations are being made on what look to me like very flimsy grounds, on account of what look to me like ordinary human failings such as hot-temperedness or gullibility, or perhaps just strong belief in a "big tent" political strategy.
Indeed it's likely that disruptive government agents would promote nutty ideas and obnoxious, divisive behavior. However, by no means does it seem likely to me that all or even most of the people who do these things, even habitually, are government agents. In my experience, people who do these sorts of things can be found everywhere, not just in the kinds of organizations that would be likely to attract the attention of government agents. In my experience, most people in general are far from perfectly rational. Lots of people have all sorts of obnoxious habits. And the U.S. educational system doesn't do a good job of training people in critical thinking skills, or in the art of giving and receiving constructive criticism.
Furthermore, although it does seem likely the neo-con cabal is indeed doing what it can to derail the 9/11 Truth movement, it nevertheless seems to me unlikely to me that the movement could be crawling with agents to the extent that some people believe, for a reason I'll explain below.
On the following pages:
http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=... http://visibility911.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=...
you can download the following, dealing with COINTELPRO: (1) audio excerpts from a documentary by Adi Gevins, and (2) an interview with Dr. William Pepper about COINTELPRO.
One thing I noticed was Adi Gevins' explanation of how various COINTELPRO activities were eventually exposed, via, among other things, the testimony of former FBI agents and informers. Apparently these folks, while acting as agents or informers, had believed that they were doing something good and patriotic, only to realize later that their activities served no good purpose after all, and were just causing harm.
It is easy to imagine how the agents and informers of the 1960's might have believed that they were doing good. They thought of themselves as fighting against Communism, a movement which, however noble its ideals, had clear ties to a foreign power that was the U.S.A.'s number one geopolitical rival. So it was easy to convince huge numbers of Americans (including even a lot of liberals, let alone the average FBI agent or informer), that Communists were an inherently treasonous bunch. And indeed Communists were a part of the mass movements of the 1960's, even if only a small part. So it's easy to see how a lot of people might have believed that they were doing their patriotic duty by helping the government keep tabs on various left-wing political movements, or even by disrupting them to prevent them from achieving goals desired by the Communists.
As an example of COINTELPRO disruption back in the 1960's, William Pepper mentions the Black Caucus and its government-agent-inspired divisiveness. It is easy to imagine how some rank-and-file FBI agents might have believed that they were doing their patriotic duty by promoting black separatism, thereby helping to keep black people away from those awful Communists. (Other people involved in that particular disruption were recruited from street gangs.)
On the other hand, I have to wonder: What could possibly be going on inside the heads of those government agents who have infiltrated the 9/11 Truth movement with the aim of disrupting it? Are all of them knowingly engaged in covering up a blatantly treasonous criminal conspiracy? I seriously doubt that very many of them could hang around the 9/11 Truth movement for very long without becoming convinced that there most likely was indeed bigtime treason at the top. That being the case, how can they possibly continue to imagine, for very long, that they are doing good by disrupting the 9/11 Truth movement? Or are they all a bunch of sociopaths? It seems to me that most rank-and-file government employees, including most rank-and-file FBI and CIA agents, would need to maintain a patriotic self-image. But what could possibly be patriotic about covering up the murder of thousands of innocent American civilians? Only a handful of elite neo-cons could possibly believe such a thing, it seems to me.
Back in the 1960's, the popular ideology of anti-Communism could easily have kept even the most poliitically liberal-minded FBI agents wholeheartedly loyal to the government agenda, at least for a while. But what contemporary ideology could be equivalently effective for agents in the 9/11 Truth movement? I suppose rank-and-file FBI and CIA agents could be told that we're secretly controlled by Al Qaeda, but that would be plainly ridiculous to almost anyone who has hung around the 9/11 Truth movement for even a few weeks, it seems to me, in contrast to the Communist Party's obvious ties to the Soviet Union.
So, while it seems to me likely that there are indeed some disinfo agents in the 9/11 Truth movement, it also seems to me that the number of deliberate disinfo agents would necessarily be quite limited. It seems to me that having too many agents involved in the movement would be too risky to the morale of the relevant government agencies themselves, it seems to me, hence too great a risk to the perps.
Hence it seems to me most likely that the 9/11 Truth movement has been infiltrated only by a handful of agents with close ties to the neo-con elite. I seriously doubt that very many agents would be trusted with such a mission.
Furthermore, it seems to me that too much paranoia about agents can cripple a group. I wonder if it's part of the reason why TruthMove has not been able to get off the ground with regular meetings. Obviously, too much suspiciousness can be extremely divisive. Also, it seems to me likely that too much suspiciousness would be extremely offputting to new members -- whereas criticism of the more outrageous theories is not offputting, but attractive, at least to me.
It seems to me that it would be more productive just to point out bad behavior without jumping to conclusions about what it may imply about a person's motives, except in the most extreme cases. I do think it's important to remind people to be more careful to avoid promoting nonsense and to avoid behaviors that serve only to divide the 9/11 Truth movement from its most natural allies. It is also worthwhile to point out the kinds of things that agents are likely to do, and perhaps even to point out that particular behaviors are typical of agnets, when asking specific people not to engage in those behaviors. But still I think it's best to avoid accusing any specific person of being an agent, or insinuating that any specific person might be an agent, without presenting VERY strong evidence. There's a very delicate balance to be trod here, it seems to me. Certainly, criticism should not be avoided. But too much suspiciousness is harmful. I think the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" should apply to specific individual people, even though it's ALSO desirable to warn about the dangers of particular ideas, actions, etc.
Anyhow, my third major point of disagreement with many folks here on the TruthMove board has to do with the issue of how one deals with right-wingers in the 9/11 Truth movement, and likewise other people one might disapprove of on grounds other than promotion of 9/11-related nonsense.
For an example of how this issue SHOULD be handled, it might be wise to look at the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement does have a right wing, as exemplified by the website antiwar.com and by various right wing groups I've run into at anti-war rallies. There are even quite a few blatant anti-Jew bigots and Holocaust Revisionists who have endorsed the anti-war movement (and antiwar.com in particular, listed as a recommended link on at least two Holocaust Revisionist websites, IHR and CODOH). However, as far as I am aware, hardly anyone thinks of the anti-war movement as a right-wing movement. And hardly anyone, other than the most rabid Zionists, would dismiss the anti-war movement as a whole as anti-semitic. The anti-war movement is clearly dominated by leftists and liberals, for the most part. And, as far as I am aware, it would seem that "discrediting by association" is not a big problem for the anti-war movement. By way of trying to discredit the anti-war movement, all that most pro-war commentators have managed to come up with is juvenile personal insults such as "moonbats," plus, of course, the claim that we anti-war folks are undermining the morale of the troops and are therefore treasonous. As far as I can tell, the leftists are able to dominate the anti-war movement NOT via any concerted effort to drive out the right wingers, but simply by having a bunch of reasonably well-organized leftist groups such as World Can't Wait.
Similarly, to counteract the right-wingers in the 9/11 Truth movement, it seems to me that it shouldn't be necessary to go on a concerted campaign to drive the right wingers out of the movement as a whole. Certainly the right wingers SHOULD be critiqued, but what's more important is simply to organize some large, explicitly left-wing groups within the 9/11 Truth movement. As I see it, one of the 9/11 Truth movement's main problems is not the mere presence of right wing groups, but rather a relative ABSENCE of well-organized, highly visible left-wing groups. Here in New York, the 9/11 Truth movement now has a big right-wing group (We Are Change) plus a left-leaning "big tent" group (NY 9/11 Truth), but no big, solidly leftist group, and that's a big problem, in my opinion. But I don't feel that it's necessary for leftists to separate totally from the 9/11 Truth movement and build a totally separate movement. What's necessary, in my opinion, is to build some strong left-wing groups within the 9/11 Truth movement -- as well as some groups without any political agendas other than bringing the perpetrators to justice.
Fourth, more generally, I feel that worries about "discrediting by association," while valid up to a point, can be carried too far. In my opinion there's nothing wrong with having some "big tent" groups. What's necessary is that there should ALSO be well-organized, thriving groups and networks with stricter standards, and which aim to promote critical thinking within the larger 9/11 Truth movement. Once the stricter groups are active enough and have won enough support, it would then be much easier to pressure the "big tent" groups to have at least SOME standards, or at least to avoid featuring the nuttier people and ideas in their public presentations. Ideally, the "big tent" groups could also serve as an arena in which the movement's various factions could debate their differences in front of a larger crowd.
From my own perspective as a newcomer to the 9/11 Truth movement who was previously prejudiced against the movement because of exposure to nuttiness such as the fake video theories, all it took to overcome that prejudice on my part was a good look at Jim Hoffman's site, including his critiques of the no-planes theories. It was reassuring to me to see that there is a variety of opinion within the movement, and that there are folks who encourage critical, careful thinking. I was further reassured when Jim Hoffman thanked me for the email I sent him pointing out various minor errors I found on his websites. However, I would NOT feel good about the 9/11 Truth movement if it somehow managed to have a uniform politically correct line on almost every relevant issue, even if the correct line were reasonably sensible. This would make me feel as if the 9/11 Truth movement were a cult, or something.
EVERY political movement, and indeed every organized subculture, political or otherwise, is going to attract its share of undesirables. Efforts to drive them all out of the movement, beyond the most extreme cases, are in most cases futile. Worse yet, to the extent that such efforts are successful, they may also have undesirable side-effects, such as a chilling effect on legitimate disagreement.
As far as I am aware, every political movement has had fights over boundaries and who's in, who's out. There have been lots of similar fights within the GLBT rights movement, for example. As far as I am aware, nearly all these battles, with only rare exceptions, have eventually been won in favor of inclusion. The only case I'm aware of where a group was successfully excluded from the GLBT rights movement in the long run, after a protracted battle, was NAMBLA, a pedophile advocacy group. (This was back in the 1980's. Here in New York, NAMBLA was allowed to have a contingent in the annual Gay Pride parade for one or two years sometime in the early 1980's, but never again since then.)
Of course, the 9/11 Truth movement and the GLBT rights movement are very different kinds of movements. The GLBT movement is a human rights movement, whereas the 9/11 Truth movement is (or should be) an attempt to bring some very powerful criminals to justice. So there will necessarily be some big differences between the two movements. For example, it's much more important to promote careful critical thinking within the 9/11 Truth movement than within the GLBT rights movement (although careful critical thinking is desirable in the latter movement too). And the GLBT rights movement isn't nearly as much of a potential threat to this country's power structure as the 9/11 Truth movement is. Nevertheless, there are some dynamics common to nearly all political movements, hence important lessons that can be learned from other political movements.
One lesson that can be learned from the GLBT rights movement is that it IS possible for a political movement to have lots and lots of factions, yet still be a strong movement despite -- or perhaps because of -- the diversity of groups. Here in New York, the GLBT community consists of hundreds of different groups, including at least a few dozen different political groups. But nearly all these many different groups march together in a show of unity every June, in the annual Pride parade. And the parade is very well-organized. To be eligible to march, each participating organization must appoint at least two parade marshals who attend a series of training sessions in the weeks before the march. Also, if I'm not mistaken, all the participating groups are allowed and encouraged to participate in planning meetings. Thus, in my opinion, the GLBT movement has a very effective combination of unity and diversity, including some groups that otherwise don't get along particularly well.
Likewise, in order for future 9/11 anniversay events to be successful, it will be necessary for the events to be planned by a committee representing a coalition of diverse groups, with an agreed-upon set of rules -- such having, as speakers at the main events, only those people that all the groups can agree on. Thus, for example, if We Are Change wants Alex Jones as a speaker, they would need to host him in a time slot during which the various groups have agreed to hold separate events, rather than at one of the main events sponsored by the coalition as a whole. This would go a long way toward helping to keep the soundest evidence in the foreground and keep the nonsense, speculation, and political agendas in the background, without any need to go on a purist crusade to ostracize all groups one doesn't agree with.