Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Sander Hicks and Webster Tarpley on Youtube (27 posts)

  1. Arabesque
    Member

    I was really on the fence with this wanting to believe that his associations were just his naivete or maybe his business dealings, but a reasonable, critical-thinking activist would have seen Les and Tarpley's actions and would not stick up for them at this point.

    Big tent only functions by having members of an activist group who actively encourage and promote the Big Tent. I have observed (in general) there is the phenomenon of the "sane moderate": someone who appears to be reasonable on the surface and yet encourages and promotes activists that are disruptive and material that is discrediting.

    Put another way: if everyone was reasonable and rejected nonsense, the big tent would not exist at all. It is only because there are activists (in a position of "leadership") who "steer" the movement into associating with disruptors and discrediting the 9/11 truth movement that the Big Tent is effective.

    All of this can be observed without determining intent. However, from what I have seen from Sander, he openly associates with someone like Jim Fetzer. This returns us to the concept of the "sane moderate". Regardless of intent or simply bad judgement, the sane moderate regularly apologizes for and associates with obvious disruptors.

    The sane moderate apologizes for the disruption and discrediting material or re-frames attacks in an unfair and misleading way. For example, one prominent activist described Tarpleys' slander against Cosmos as a "rift" or "infighting". In other words, reporting attacks is now considered the equivalent of calling someone a Chechen terrorist.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    Thanks for waking me up and making me realize a very clear thing. I will steer clear.

    That's nice to hear, thanks.

    I think we often have the feeling we have to know what someone's purpose or intent is to decide how to respond, but we don't. We only need to look at what their options and choices were, what their actions were, and who benefited in the end.

    And the formula responses they give to defend hoax conference managers don't have to be created at an intelligence agency to have the same outcome.

    All we need to do is just what you did -- engage them politely and put out a very basic message, see how they respond. I can say I tried that for most who I have ended up describing as contributing to disinformation. Some were so far out that it was obvious -- Wood and Reynolds -- but the "sane moderate" that Arabesque describes above involves more thought. Often I've come away in disbelief that some who push big tent could be agents or whatever, and I have no evidence that any of them are, but in the end, it only matters that they push big tent and make excuses.

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.