Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Centralization of Truth Movement strategy/leadership (27 posts)

  1. Adam1
    Member

    I said this a little earlier on another site in regards to a post about the Denver Clinton 9/11 confrontation

    "...There just isn't a whole lot that many small, geographically-isolated groups, acting on their own, with no direction or leadership are going to do on their own that is going to come across as all that impressive. There's only so many "Abbie Hoffmans" per generation that have the imagination to think of a stunt that 10-15 people can pull off that will be a well-recieve attention getting action lin the model of the Hoffman's NYSE Dollar Drop.

    There is now nationwide/worldwide base of support that has been activated for a Truth movement. There's millions of people ready out there waiting for direction. And Waiting. And waiting. Any of you that has done much work directing volunteers... what's the #1 rule in dealing with volunteers? Never allow those who have stepped forward to volunteer to help to go home without giving them something to work on.

    Someone has to step forward now and lead that activist base. The truth movement needs direction and strategy planning. We've got the best set of communication tools a group of activists ever had. It's time to start using them to make the truth movement a much more dynamic force of change..."

    I'm putting this up here as a topic starter. I would like to see what people's opinions are on the subject of looking into centralizing more of the strategy and leadership of the Truth Movement.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. truthmod
    Administrator

    the subject of looking into centralizing more of the strategy and leadership of the Truth Movement.

    I'm all for it. This is something that I've been arguing for for years--responsible, humble, and effective leadership. Some people get sensitive when you start talking about the need for leadership because they think you're just trying to take over or that they'll be left out or subjugated.

    Main obstacles:

    • big egos in the movement

    • many people will prefer to do things on their own rather than join a coalition or follow leadership (this can be good and bad)

    • too many organizations without enough coordination or cooperation

    • leadership that panders to sensationalism, pacification, or emotional needs seems to prevail

    • responsible/critical voices are often resented

    • responsible/critical voices are often averse to asserting themselves in an effective manner

    • the movement is based on personal engagement, curiosity, understanding while most people's idea of leadership is authoritarian.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. Adam1
    Member

    If we're contemplating any type of activity is that involves more than the amount of people you can fit around a table and talk to, leadership and strategy is going to be required. We need to gather and work together with the people that do indeed recognize that, and are capable of and willing to work within a certain minimum level of structure.

    An initial "start-up" group might not initially be real large, but if the people in it act in a fairly unified manner with a little self discipline, they're not going to be small group long. The great majority of people are not heard from in forums like this. They aren't quick to speak publicly. Those people generally tend to listen more and follow the lead of others.

    Right now, there's just a ball just laying on the ground of a stadium field and a big blank scoreboard with nothing on it but a clock ticking. There's no referee standing next to the ball with a whistle ready to put the ball into play. Someone's just gonna have to pick up the ball and run with it.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. JohnA
    Member

    There has been a consolidation of leadership - of sorts - compared to a year or two ago. but - keep in mind that the anti-war movement of the 1960s was also very fractured. yes - there were a few flashly faces that, decades later, we associate with that period. But, there was no centralized board of directors guiding the anti-war movement. many individual student groups and religious groups and ethnic-based groups, etc etc across the nation acted independently - but in concert.

    personally i would like to see an alternative to the Alex Jones WeAreChange brigade of activists. being the noisiest activist does not necessarily translate into the most effective.

    keep in mind that many historians credited Nixon's 1968 and 1972 elections to the 'agitators' on the left who scared middle america - and pushed them to the right. you know - those unwashed scary Charles Manson types. Hippies did not 'play well' in Iowa.

    There were the "Clean for Gene" (McCarthy) anti-war activists who understood the importance of projecting a squeeky clean public persona - when challenging American policy. But, subsequent assassinations overshadowed their efforts as chaos descended - and Nixon stepped into the vacuum.

    IMHO we are alienating and losing many of the very same people (like Bill Maher) who we should be reaching - through reasoned and intellectually honest debate. Disrupting his show simply hardened his position against us. He hates us now and may NEVER open his mind to rational debate again.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. truthmover
    Administrator

    Adam1,

    Welcome to the forum. Your frustration is felt by all of us here. You've certainly got the right attitude to make something happen. But I've found that experience in the movement tends to lead to understanding of that list that Truthmod presented. But that's not to suggest that bigger things can't and shouldn't happen.

    One thing to keep in mind. If you are including issues other than just 9/11, the 'Truth Movement' does not really exist yet. It's just a concept in a few broadly considerate minds. TruthMove has been trying to get people to use this term independently of '9/11 truth movement', as we feel strongly that we are sitting on a premise that could provide the kind of unification implied by the term.


    The 'Truth Movement' in our eyes emerges from the potential for most progressive and many traditional movements to unify around their shared investment in informed consent.

    "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

    If you think about it, and we certainly have, informed consent is just about the best summary of what we are all trying to promote. All these movements want people to have more information, most of which is not being conveyed well by mainstream sources, in order that they can make more rational decision that will greatly impact all our future. It also implies transparency of government, democratic process, and an independent media. The anti-war movement wants these things. The environmental movement wants these things. The election reform movement wants these things. The 9/11 truth movement wants these things.

    Just saying 'Truth Movement' could really be too general without a simple and unifying definition such as this. And here's the important point. Being a part of the 'Truth Movement' does not imply sacrificing your investment in your specific movement. We are not arguing that people should abandon their interests to join the 'Truth Movement'. That wouldn't get us anywhere. We are arguing that they already share these priorities, and should ALSO work together toward a common goal essential to each movement.


    So that's a central part of the definition of 'Truth Movement' that we feel has some conceptual teeth. Some potential influence. But it seems that no matter how many times we push this concept, that it is taking others recognizing its importance on their own that has brought people closer to making it a reality.

    Here's the good news. It seems like people are ready for something like this. In the last year, we have seen many in the 9/11 truth movement showing an interest in making connections with other movements. We have seen people in the movement begin to acknowledge that 9/11 alone is just one piece of the puzzle. And I think we have seen some people acknowledging that TruthMove might be onto something.

    But...to get down to the active side of things. We don't have a lot of people volunteering to help us. And I know a central reason why. The same reason that people haven't been trying to unify with other movements is the reason why its been challenging for us to attract volunteers. People want to focus on a specific subject that is familiar and important to them personally. Our concept is new and broad and I think does not appeal to many who have not yet come to a point where they recognize the importance of this kind of conceptual unification. Once again, we see that changing, but rather slowly.

    However...recently things have been looking up. That conference in Santa Cruz has a mission statement that sounded particularly like our mode of thinking. And we've seen several prominent organization and activist making statements acknowledging that 2008 has to be the year in which we create more unity. I think its in the air. And, the last year of the Bush presidency is certainly an important time for us to be promoting the truth.

    I'm not sure than any one group needs to step forward as you suggest to lead everyone. This movement has been growing by the creation of local groups. And there does seem to be a lot of ego involved in that. For this reason, I think it all the more important that we promote something that rides parallel to that structure instead of replacing it. Let people have their individual groups, but get them on board for something we can all agree on.

    So if there is going to be a national or even international effort to unify people who are all invested in a common goal we need a few things.

    • A useful and unifying definition for the 'Truth Movement'. One example provided above.

    • A promotional campaign dedicated to securing wide support among diverse movements. We need people to be members of the truth movement in addition to their local concerns. If TruthMove were coordinating this effort we would also need more people dedicated specifically to this cause.

    • Some kind of regular action, like the TruthAction 11th of the month campaign, that gives the movement some kind of active structure. It can't just be conceptual. There has to be an activity involved and it has to have a really solid and unifying premise. Pushing for media independence is a good example as that is equally important to all movements and central to informed consent.

    • Not any one leader, but a few core people very capable and dedicated to the task.

    TruthMove has been trying to set down the structure to facilitate this kind of movement forward. But we just haven't yet found the kind of support we need to push things to the next level.

    Maybe we aren't the group that is going to make all this happen. We'd certainly like to see someone take this ball and run with it. We'd be running cover. But we also haven't seen that anyone else has conceptualized this in a manner we feel is likely to take hold. And the key problems we see are many of those Truthmod pointed out.

    People get something going but then don't maintain humility. People have the right idea, but don't have the ability to put it into terms that many would find compelling. People have their one pet theory they want to include that spoils the pot. People have cultural biases that prevent them from working with people of different backgrounds.


    Anyway, we're on the same page with you about the problem. And we've come to believe that no one is the world is any more likely to pull this off that we are. So we might as well aim high, do our best, and see what happens.

    Right now TruthMove is trying to take our next big step forward by holding public meetings on a weekly basis. NYC only has one gig in town, and that ny911truth, Les Jamieson, and St. Mark's church. TruthMove and WeAreChange both came about after splitting with that group as Les was too controlling and limited growth and innovation. Nick Levis recently called him the 'anti-organizer' for this reason. As a result, there is a vacuum in this city for greater coordination around these issues. While its very difficult for us to find a venue, we are committed to finding one, and holding a weekly news/education/organizing meeting. There are actually dozens of people such as ourselves who we regularly meet during out street action, who used to go to St. Mark's but stopped because of Les. They are waiting for something better.

    Once we get a venue, we've got 911truth.org ready to promote it and our group as the primary contact in NYC. That's relatively huge. I've actually been looking into venues, and we have a number of options if we can muster $25 an hour for the space and find one that isn't opposed to our politics.

    I don't know if any of that is encouraging. But we're certainly doing the best we can to move in the direction that you spoke of above.

    If you have any ideas for how we should all proceed toward formulating a viable 'Truth Movement' we would certainly really appreciate hearing them.

    Thanks for joining the conversation here.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. chrisc
    Member

    Adam1 said:

    I would like to see what people's opinions are on the subject of looking into centralizing more of the strategy and leadership of the Truth Movement.

    Personally I'm more in favour of an autonomous, non-hierarchical approach rather than a centralised hierarchical one...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. JennySparks
    Member

    Lo all. Been a lurker forever--this thread finally motivated me to register. ;-)

    There just isn't a whole lot that many small, geographically-isolated groups, acting on their own, with no direction or leadership are going to do on their own that is going to come across as all that impressive.

    Dunno if that's a fair assessment as the LOADS of people acting on their own are so severely under reported by the MSM, if it wasn't for sites like Truthaction, they may not even know about each other. The less people know about each others actions, the less opportunities arise for them to work together on a larger scale organically.

    I agree with chrisc--"we don't need another hero"-- strategy, yes; organization, yes; focus, god yes--but it's a mistake to think centralization is the only way to accomplish those.

    On rereading the Adam1's post, I might agree to something resembling centralized strategy--which some people have floated already--, but centralized leadership--that's right out.

    Now to see if I got the formating right in this post....

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. Adam1
    Member

    Personally I'm more in favour of an autonomous, non-hierarchical approach rather than a centralised hierarchical one...

    That's what the situation currently is, and it's clearly not working very well. Six years have passed and still nothing is getting organized bigger than small local one day events.

    Look at the example of the Civil Right Movement in the 50's and 60's. There were some large, well organized groups like the NAACP. There were some smaller well organized groups like the SCLC. There was individual action of many, many types.

    The Montgomery Bus Boycott was conceived by the local NAACP president. There's no way an action of that size can be pulled off without the support of a big national organization backing it, and then the immediate creation of a large local support organization, the Montgomery Improvement Association, led by a local Montgomery minister named Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

    If someone isn't comfortable working in structured groups with others, then they are free not to participate. However, people that aren't comfortable working in groups with a little structure do not have the right to impose their personal choice to work outside group structures upon people who are comfortable working that way.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. chrisc
    Member

    If someone isn't comfortable working in structured groups with others, then they are free not to participate.

    Non-hierarchical does not mean un-structured, it mean using things like consensus decision making...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. truthmover
    Administrator

    First of all, welcome JennySparks!!! Glad to have you posting here.

    Now, Adam1.

    Six years have passed and still nothing is getting organized bigger than small local one day events.

    I don't think that's true. The 11th of the Month campaign has been very successful in encouraging wider participation. There have been several movies made and books published that have garnered wide attention. There have been many national conferences that have resulted in more focused strategies on a local level. Many more celebrities have backed the movement. There are countless number of new local groups that have sprung up. Reason for optimism.

    If you happen to be judging the movement entirely from the standpoint of whether or not we have a national organization, or whether we have secured a new investigation, than you might be disappointed. But there are many among us who do not think either of those thinks is either likely or beneficial.

    However, people that aren't comfortable working in groups with a little structure do not have the right to impose their personal choice to work outside group structures upon people who are comfortable working that way.

    That comment seems a bit odd to me. Is that even possible? I don't think I've heard that anyone has tried to undermine a group project who wanted to work on their own.

    In any case, as I suggested in my long post above its important than any attempt at national coordination not appear to attempt to negate people's local projects, but rather run parallel. In other words, they aren't mutually exclusive.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  11. JennySparks
    Member

    Adam1--I think you may be glossing over how widespread media coverage was a key factor in the success of the Civil Rights Movement.

    And I think you misunderstand chrisc--"non-hierarchical" does not mean "no structure"; it means a different structure.

    Though I do sympathize with the possible reasons you could be missing that--few of us have had productive experiences in radical democratic structures, but that's more down to the dearth of skills and resources of members than the structure, per se. Regardless of structure type, it will be ineffective if few people know what they're doing.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  12. JennySparks
    Member

    First of all, welcome JennySparks!!! Glad to have you posting here.

    Cheers! I'm going away now--loads of things to do--but thanks for the welcome. ;-)

    Posted 16 years ago #
  13. Adam1
    Member

    Non-hierarchical does not mean un-structured, it mean using things like consensus decision making

    I know exactly what "non-hierarchical consensus decision" making processes are. I've sat in a room in a meeting for nine horrible hours listening to one person roadblock an entire organization from doing anything that whole day. That person stopped that organization from doing a single action for the whole year and a half I kept track of that organization. I stopped keeping track of that organization as a result. Non-hierarchical consensus decision making processes should never have gotten out of the University experimental behavior labs. They are a model that does not work in the real world with real people.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  14. Adam1
    Member

    "...The 11th of the Month campaign has been very successful in encouraging wider participation..."

    I'm not sure you can define getting people to undertake activities of some kind on the 11th a campaign. I would think the activities being done would have to be somewhat similar in nature, and have similar theme to them.

    There is certainly reason for optimism. Generally, I would think a lot of reason for optimism is that people do start traditionally start getting themselves organized somewhere around this point.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  15. This feels like a function-following-form argument.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  16. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Problems I see. Maybe you don't.

    Democracy. Let's have a mind experiment on that. Let's say you choose this leadership by a fair and unmanipulated election. The electorate consists of all self-designated 9/11 truth activists or 9/11 skeptics who have actually done anything real (say, been in two vigils, or spoke, or organized the event or passed out leaflets or published 1 oz. of their own research). We can magically assure they are genuine so there are no agents, niche-market opportunists or true clinical cases among them. And assume all candidates are ready and willing to take on the task. As of today, who would be the chair? Who else would get enough votes for the representative council? What propositions would make the list of beliefs most common to this electorate? Where would the emphasis lie in the propaganda? What would be the top "talking points"?

    Aristocracy. Forget what that normally means; the original Greek term means "rule of the excellent or rule of the best." Let's say there is a Platonic form of the right leaders for 9/11 truth as a cause. Imagine them yourself. Let's say you could put together the best possible real-world approximation of such a group. Or let's say this group forms spontaneously as they find each other. What does this group look like? Has anything in the history so far approached this group, whether in embryonic or more fully developed form?

    Now this near-ideal group announces itself. What are the minimum resources it requires to make itself heard? Assuming these are available, what happens next? How do all the other groups and would-be leaders react? How does the state react? How do the activists and skeptics generally react? How do the people at large react?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  17. chrisc
    Member

    Non-hierarchical consensus decision making processes... are a model that does not work in the real world with real people.

    In my experience this isn't true. The Seeds for Change Consensus Decision Making notes are a good starting point for this approach: http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consens

    Posted 16 years ago #
  18. Adam1
    Member

    In my experience this isn't true.

    Now come on...you know that just aren't being completely honest here.

    In just our shared experience on one particular website forum, I can think of at least four people in the last two months that prove my point a consensus system would never work in the truth movement. I'm not going to name names, but from "fake moon landing advocates" to "blame Zionist advocates," They refused to stay on topic. They kept posting about subjects they were told not to post on. They started flame wars and finally they had to be removed.

    A consensus system gives individuals with disruptive personalities veto power over the entire group. For example, someone can say, "this group isn't doing anything else until the name of this movement is "9/11 and fake moon landing truth." You can't remove a disruptor, because they veto that, too.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  19. chrisc
    Member

    A consensus system gives individuals with disruptive personalities veto power over the entire group. For example, someone can say, "this group isn't doing anything else until the name of this movement is "9/11 and fake moon landing truth." You can't remove a disruptor, because they veto that, too.

    If this were to happen then I'd suggest that there had been a fundamental failure to identify the common goal:

    Common Goal: All members of the group/meeting need to be united in a common goal, whether it is an action, living communally or greening the neighbourhood. It helps to clearly establish what this overall goal of the group is and to write it down as well. In situations where consensus seems difficult to achieve, it helps to come back to this common goal and to remember what the group is all about.
    http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consens#how

    Posted 16 years ago #
  20. Adam1
    Member

    If this were to happen then I'd suggest that there had been a fundamental failure to identify the common goal

    Not if the goal of the person talking about "9/11 and fake moon landings" was to disrupt the group. By choosing a consensus system, you have ensured the disruptor will succeed in his goal while everyone else in the group fails.

    Just go read freerepublic.com and read the stories of the glee the right wing freaks get in disrupting anything on the left side of the spectrum.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  21. chrisc
    Member

    Not if the goal of the person talking about "9/11 and fake moon landings" was to disrupt the group.

    I was talking about the goal of the group not the goals of the disruptor... wasn't this clear?

    Just go read freerepublic.com and read the stories of the glee the right wing freaks get in disrupting anything on the left side of the spectrum.

    If you think that consensus decision making is something that should be applicable to a "moderated Internet forum, activist and chat site for conservatives" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic ) then I really don't think you know what you are talking about...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  22. Adam1
    Member

    I was talking about the goal of the group not the disruptor...

    If you think that consensus decision making is something that should be applicable to a "moderated Internet forum, activist and chat site for conservatives" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic ) then I really don't think you know what you are talking about...

    -The goal of the group is irrelevant. Consensus decision making makes the goal of the group irrelevant. It forces everyone in the group to conform to the will of a disruptive member of the group.

    -I knows exactly what I'm talking about. "Freeping." If you don't know about all the disruptions of activites of all kinds on the left side of the political spectrum that have been caused by members of freerepublic.com, and a couple others like it, maybe you're not sufficiently informed about what really been happening on the ground in political organizing for the last decade.

    Feeling freeped? GOP activists did it Growing troops are making sure they're heard

    'Freeped' is a term coined by subscribers to FreeRepublic.com -- a conservative website devoted to 'protecting the Constitution' and heckling the Democrats. BY KARL ROSS kross@herald.com

    "TALLAHASSEE -- Outside the Leon County Courthouse three young women, supporters of the Democratic Party recount efforts, occupied a corner of the front lawn Saturday morning.

    One set down a portable amplifier and plugged in a black, hollow-body electric guitar. She began to strum folk songs, while the other two held pro-Gore signs and sang chorus.

    Before long, they were drowned out by a throng of Bush-Cheney supporters.

    ''Who's in the White House?'' one yelled out.

    ''Bush, Bush, Bush-Bush-Bush!'' others responded, imitating the popular Who Let the Dogs Out? song.

    The women probably didn't know it, but they had just been ''freeped.''

    That's the term coined by subscribers to FreeRepublic.com -- a conservative website devoted to ''protecting the Constitution'' and heckling the Democrats. Hats, buttons and banners emblazoned with the FreeRepublic logo were conspicuous.

    ''We are activists,'' Lenore Landry said. ''We freep the White House. We freep every time Gore appears, or Clinton appears. We are freepers.''

    Landry said the Web site was founded by a California ''patriot'' named Jim Robinson in 1997 as a tool for orchestrating support for the Clinton impeachment campaign.

    ''He started with a few people,'' she said. ''Now we have chapters all over the world.''

    The Web site is credited with creating the Sore-Loserman slogan -- a sarcastic reference to Gore-Liberman -- that have cropped up at anti-Gore protests nationwide.

    Landry expected between 100 and 150 freepers to demonstrate at the courthouse, where Gore lawyers are contesting the result of Florida's presidential election. Republican activists outnumber rivals by a 10-1 margin.

    Landry said the Web site has a membership of 120,000, and many local freepers have participated in election-related protests in Seminole, Broward and Miami-Dade counties...."

    Posted 16 years ago #
  23. chrisc
    Member

    -The goal of the group is irrelevant.

    Why would anyone want to be involved in a group where the goal is irrelevant?

    Consensus decision making makes the goal of the group irrelevant. It forces everyone in the group to conform to the will of a disruptive member of the group.

    No it doesn't:

    Leaving the group: If one person continually finds him/herself at odds with the rest of the group, it may be time to think about the reasons for this. Is this really the right group to be in? A group may also ask a member to leave.
    http://seedsforchange.org.uk/free/consens#agree

    I haven't come across any "freepers", I guess it's just something that happens in the US? I don't see why any progressive group would let these people get involved in the first place though...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  24. truthmover
    Administrator

    Adam1,

    If you are referring to TruthAction and the wtcdemolition crew among others, then the concern you are addressing has nothing to do with leading by consensus. It has to do with a lack of clearly defined priorities and guidelines for behavior.

    But that has recently changed as Cosmos has come up with some rules, and applied them. No more Real Truther. As a result I now post there.

    As I have said many times before, forum guidelines are somewhat analogous to the stated mission and priorities of a group. As you have suggested, if you don't have an adequate strategy or defined approach, then there is no solid basis for administration of a forum or group. And no group or project or even movement begins by consensus. As you also suggest it takes a few people sitting down and figuring out a solid strategy that they intend to follow.

    I'm not sure how we got to talking about consensus. As Nicholas suggested, you may not need leaders, but you do need the keepers of the definition. Forum moderators in essence. Those who know the exact definition of the project and keep it from being derailed by those with different priorities.

    In that mode of operation, we have different projects that emerge with specific approaches, and the marketplace of ideas determines which is most popular. Those who approach this with an all inclusive 'big tent' approach will suffer the fate of many a previous project and discussion forum. Without a solid definition, everyone feels free to redefine the project in their interest and nothing gets done.

    I think most of us agree that greater focus and better strategies would be great. But just saying we need them doesn't get us anywhere. Are you a part of the movement? Are you trying to make this happen? Do you have any specific suggestions?

    Posted 16 years ago #
  25. chrisc
    Member

    I'm not sure how we got to talking about consensus.

    That is probably my fault -- I first mentioned it in reference to an autonomous, non-hierarchical approach as opposed to a "centralizing more of the strategy and leadership" approach...

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply »

You must log in to post.