What is the Best Way to Deal With "Cognitive Infiltration"?
It seems to me that while the amount of bickering in the 9/11 truth movement has not necessarily increased in recent weeks, the recent publicizing of Cass Sunstein's otherwise obscure paper advocating cognitive infiltration of dissident groups has brought into more clear focus the need to address the kind of infiltration he advocates.
Whether it's the ongoing saga of CIT vs. the "Tattoo Theorists" or Willyloman's lonely crusade (not to say it is necessarily wrong or even misguided--I really don't know) to draw attention to the possible use of PETN (det cord) in the WTC demolitions, there sure seems to be a lot of energy being devoted to fruitless argument. By this I don't mean to suggest that these questions are not worth discussing--they certainly don't rise (or sink) to the level of hologram planes, that's for sure. In fact, in moderate doses I think the debates that occur on these and similar topics are fascinating and good exercises.
The problem, and the reason I term them "fruitless" is that they really do tend to go round and round in circles long after it's clear that nothing new has been added to tip the scales one way or another. At this point the reasonable thing would seem to me to be to classify these as static arguments and move on to other issues that have been suffering from neglect. As a truth movement we have many possible roles to play that aren't being played by those who should. We are in theory a large team of investigators, archivists, historians, marketers, etc. The purpose of a program of cognitive infiltration is not the overt one of correcting a bunch of loons' "crippled epistemologies", it is instead to keep us too busy fighting ourselves to effectively fight the real adversary, which in our case is the entire body of lies surrounding the events of 9/11.
Let me make very clear at this point that I am not accusing anyone in particular of being involved in cognitive infiltration--not CIT, not willyloman, or even Frank Ho. :)
I include myself in the observation that, as our friend Frank has tried to make clear (I think), one aspect of cognitive infiltration is that it has the effect of seeding a mostly honest group discourse with a kind of self-sustaining acrimony, where the mere suspicion of the existence of infiltration provokes behavior indistinguishable from deliberate disruption. One of these behaviors is, of course, the tendency to turn on each other with more than just constructive criticism. At first glance it certainly seems an intractable situation. But must it be so?
I would say, emphatically that NO it need not be this way. We can and should adopt a certain set of protocols (if you will) that will minimize the effects of "cognitive infiltration" (I should say at this point that we can just as well use the term COINTELPRO, but for the purpose of situating the term in our context I think the newer term is probably more useful, since COINTELPRO is so widely associated with the specific program in the 70s that we've all read so much about by now.) The purpose of these protocols would not be explicitly to identify, or "out" disinformation or its agents, but to counteract its effects. For example, if its effects are to make us unproductive, our protocols should succeed in keeping us productive.
In the spirit of brainstorming, here are some thoughts off the top of my head, which I hope might encourage discussion and creative thinking on the problem.
1) accept that infiltration is a reality and that we will not eliminate all traces of it, ever.
2) strive to provide to the interested researcher as complete an account as possible of the various positions on each subject. We need not hide the fact that some people claim to believe that no planes hit the twin towers. It is a fact that some people do. We need not hide the fact that there are people who act like genuine bigots and advocate certain positions like ZIHOP. It is a fact. Instead of pretending these things don't exist, or misrepresenting them, we should welcome and encourage interested parties to consider the arguments and decide for themselves what to think. For example, I will gladly provide links to anyone who wonders why we don't welcome "no planes at the WTC" advocates on WTCD. I will direct them to Killtown, Nico Haupt, whomever. Let their arguments convince or fail to convince on their genuine merits (if any.) As a counterpoint, consider how truthaction and 911blogger (one and the same controllers) treat WTCD. If its existence is even acknowledged, our positions are distorted, our characters assassinated, and our quotes carefully cherry picked to bias people against us right off the bat. Why wouldn't they just say that "we strongly disagree with these people and their approach to 9/11 truth. Here is a link to their site--judge for yourself."
OK, that's just for starters--can anyone think other ways that we can minimize the ill effects that cognitive infiltration is designed to elicit?
Well said, gRet. Some thoughts...
How about identifying fallacies (straw man arguments, ad hominems, baseless or gratuitous GBA (guilt by association), appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, etc.) in peoples' logic and refusing to tolerate continuous patterns of fallacies and deceptive arguments by people who have been warned to stop using those tactics?
In my experience, I have found a very close correlation between disinformation agents and the use of purposely deceptive reasoning. Of course not everybody who utilizes these tactics are agents of disinformation, but it seems like just about all agents of disinformation make liberal use of these tactics, and those who may not be agents should not be resorting to those fallacies anyway. If someone can't seem to argue their points without resorting to fallacies and deceptive discourse, then people are less likely to consider that that person has any valid points, and for good reason. A good example is willyloman. He can't seem to write a single comment that does not contain some sort of misrepresentation of someone's arguments. Whenever people attempt to correct his misrepresentation, he simply responds with new misrepresentations, and round and round it goes, to the point where one must really question if willy isn't just trying to waste peoples' time.
So, setting a high standard for rules and etiquette in regards to deceptive/fallacious discourse, such as expecting people to provide an honest and reasonable basis for any accusations against people, rather than bald assertions, for example, and requiring arguments to be sound and logical, in general, will go a long way towards keeping discussions more civil and with less tendency for discussions to degenerate into personal attacks, while at the same time countering the effects of cognitive infiltration.
My thoughts,
Since most of us would argue that infiltration and disinfo has been with us since the start, the appearance of the Sunstein article does not make the issue any more immediate or serious for us, so the publication of this only serves as another item of cultural propaganda reinforcing the myth that the 911 truth movement is invalid. I dont think any of us are particularly scared of the idea that someone will turn up soon to challenge our "crippled epistemology", most would say "Bring it On"
However my opinions on combating cognitive infiltration:
1. I agree with Keenan, that there are various easily identifiable strategies used consistently against 911 truth,
For Example:
i)distraction,
ii)straw men,
iii)dissemination (Broadcasting a message without allowing feedback),
iv)Intellectual posturing ( "I have PHD ,& I say your augment is void, & also by the way your spelling and punctuation are poor").
v)Voluminous argument,(giving a 70 page rebuttal to some evidence makes it look like there is a huge weight against the argument even though the 70 page argument is largely waffle. Also the most contentious arguments are the most voluminous, so without selection, volume alone is the indication of current concerns to a lurker who will see largely disagreements (Maybe this is point i)above again).
vi)Over complication of scientific rebuttal designed to lose the punter and them feel unqualified to follow the evidence ( A JREF staple).
vii)Highlighting Islamic terrorism, and giving (an unsaid) reason why people should look the other way (Fog of War).
These strategies should be publicized to give people disinfo vaccinations.
2. There is a widely stated belief amongst all factions of the 911 truth movement that diversity is desirable, and you can trust the public to reach their own conclusions based on whatever evidence they stumble across. I disagree, the
subject is too large, with too much disinfo and valid debunking of weaker evidence out there. Someone needs masses of time to get to grips with the entirety of the subject before they can draw their own conclusions, most people do not have this time to spare.Prioritizing evidence allows them to get to the good stuff quicker and is therefore more efficient for increasing public awareness.
People talk about consensus like it is a dirty word,meaning peer pressure conformity/ brainwashing. Whereas human evolution over 6 million years gave us the mechanism for how to deal with differing personal convictions in a group or society. People fight for their opinions, but ultimately the group decides what is most relevant & useful, and it is ONLY such a consensus which gives any validity whatsoever to any hypothesis especially when in opposition to the dominant status quo.This process also acts to refine hypotheses and make them stronger. It is a wonderful design,
it is the reason for human dominance, why throw out this 6 million year old mechanism for 911 truth?
Yes this reasoning is potentially open to hijacking with personalities or controlled websites steering the selection.
That is the main problem, in that there is currently no widely read 911 truth site that could be trusted to measure and amplify consensus democratically based on a (911) educated community. In the absence of this most tried and tested mechanism for cultural change, the best we can do currently is defer to other sites like AE 911truth which we endorse as being most credible.
3.I believe that Normative psychology (Ta for that Keenan)is the biggest obstacle to 911 truth. If NO MSN, NO LEFT Leaders, NO politicians etc endorse 911 truth, there is a cultural block against 911 truth. Though I hate to say it,but given the banal and pathetic celebrity culture the masses are fed, if anyone who has any celebrity can be persuaded to stand up with us (as long as they are on message), it will break the cultural stranglehold that the MSN have on us.
I know Ed Asner was working with DRG to establish AA911truth (Artists & Actors). When I mentioned this here at the beginning of the year, some anonymous comment said "Sit Tight".
Well.......
Consensus not a dirty word, the problem lies beyond ....
@Allende Admirer e.o.
AA:"People talk about consensus like it is a dirty word,meaning peer pressure conformity/ brainwashing. Whereas human evolution over 6 million years gave us the mechanism for how to deal with differing personal convictions in a group or society. People fight for their opinions, but ultimately the group decides what is most relevant & useful, and it is ONLY such a consensus which gives any validity whatsoever to any hypothesis especially when in opposition to the dominant status quo.This process also acts to refine hypotheses and make them stronger. It is a wonderful design, it is the reason for human dominance, why throw out this 6 million year old mechanism for 911 truth?"
End quote ....8><......
I try to keep it simple and short ;-)
[but didn't succeed]
It is the structure and substance that the consensus is about, that defines the kind of openness when dealing with arguments. When 'consensus' is completely tied or nailed up, the necessity to argue about something is gone. When 'consensus' is too open it lacks a structure that helps the participants to work towards a conclusion.
I think that - in general - most consensuses are defined by a core of active participants, on a forum or platform, who agree with each other. They are more determinative for the habits and opinions than the written rules in a statute.
You need a little luck to have common qualities (of such a 'core') balanced with a good deal of knowledge, social skills, not to much ego and a little bit of wisdom.
About the art of having fruitful discussion: I think (I argued this before) that when being in an active manner against something/ somebody, it will per definition always enlarge the negativeness of the subject you try to tackle. So, my remarks on this are never intended as a moral reprimand but as a working tool.
For example one of the latest topics here: "What the LIHOP Crusade of Jon Gold's 911Blogger Perpetuates", will just enlarge Gold as a big name in the truth movement. His name is never mentioned in the article itself and his badness is not defined. This vagueness seems lesson 1 in how to create a myth. The title in conjunction with the article itself is in fact bases on the hypothesis that the man is bad company. By repeating this the image will worsen every time. But this will not neutralize the badness of his substantial behavior (as being suggested), nor explain visitors why he is being treated like that.
Take notice! I'm not defending somebody, that's not the point.
The problem of my 'solution' for so called 'disinformants' (also having that mythical potential because of it's vagueness) seems my lack of showing concrete mechanisms to solve a problem that really exists.
My solution was indirect all the time, by just keeping the eye on the information monitor. Wrong information? Debunk it. Some idiot, agent, greenhorn, stubborn or else telling nonsense? Just debunk and create authority by just doing that well.
Somebody important spreading misinformation all the time? Create a (temporary) category for debunking all his/her lies or crooked information. Just pragmatic and efficient. By not assaulting the person the attention will be on the matter itself. The person will shrink by his own disinformation. Very powerful. Every personal assault will diminish the effectiveness.
In Holland I have sometimes [when active on a forum] to deal with a small core of really fanatic debunkers/flamers. I mean, no chance for good substantial conversation. Sometimes one will say that he's just doing it to damage, because 'truthers' are such a bunch of morons.
"Leaders" of these small compounds do actually have a lot of knowledge by following 9/11 for years. I guess that Waarheid911.com is never been damaged by these groups because it doesn't seek for personal confrontation, nor seeking for having personal opinions confirmed.
It works like the Teflon coating in a frying pan when just being an upholder for something, being for substantial information. Efforts from others to damage doesn't seem to stick. Information that is factual and back-upped by sources. The readers have to decide what their opinion will be. I do the fore-work and try to let speak the facts.
Sources like the Citizen Investigation Team, who are controversial within our own environment, are not a problem too. I mean, I can't erase conflicts or a lack of scientific culture although the pretensions seems to be scientific. But when I still think the information is important enough to mention, I just provide the article with a (serious) warning and some links to the kind of critics that I consider as reliable or reasonable. Or I write a critic based on facts, not on persons, myself.
Of course, the way how information is being dosed, presented and selected is very important, but on the end it should be the visitor who makes up his/her mind based on the given facts. Unconsciously they will appreciate the unbiased format as a positive sign.
Actively fighting figures or assumptions (instead of just correcting them) will make people suspicious, because they sense personal and ego-driven calculations.
http://waarheid911.com [Dutch]
http://twitter.com/W911 [English]
When I talk about consensus,
When I talk about consensus, I mean like having a regular "top 10 most convincing evidence of our readers poll" in your face on the front page.
It does not stop people from discussing or criticizing the evidence, and it does not stop new argument/ evidence from changing the content of the top 10. It just focuses things for those who might want a shortcut, and strengthens the evidence by allowing the strongest to be attacked/defended.
I am sorry Frank, but I just cant agree with you that negativity ALWAYS reflects badly on the messenger. I have no evidence whatsoever to support such an assumption, and I just don't like rules or 'truths' like this. The situation entirely depends on the particular circumstances, and what exactly is said on each side. Generally good reason and evidence is always given anyway, so I dont accept your non specific assertion that it is just personal insults and not evidential or logical argument. It is a judgement call for everyone to make about what they say. You seem to be clear that we here have overstepped the line, but you cant offer your own solution to the problem. I for one do not agree with you. Also BTW If presentations are humorous ,IMHO it does actually negate personal insult to some extent , and it also is more entertaining for your readers, so I do not accept your rule that it reflects badly on the poster or that it is bad for the movement.
What I think is bad for the movement is trying to embrace people within it who are counter productive to increasing awareness or motivation for 911 truth.
I honestly think the movement would be better off without a
load of so called 'truthers' concentrating on weak unsubstantiated 'facts' that suggest 'Muslims did 911', whilst at the same time without giving any reasons or evidence undermining the best evidence we do have.
If people do that consistently over a long time they should be called out as damaging to the cause, and the more widely known that is the better.
I guess we will have to disagree here.
Longing to see a better '911Blogger'
@Allende Admirer
AA: "I am sorry Frank, but I just cant agree with you that negativity ALWAYS reflects badly on the messenger. I have no evidence whatsoever to support such an assumption, and I just don't like rules or 'truths' like this."
Please don't feel sorry for having your own opinion ;-)
What about my 'truths' and 'rules', what I've said is just a part of argumentation. I guess quite thoroughly explained. It's also the most open model considering all the room for exchanging facts and visions. Full access for substantial debate AND suppression of small language and emotional peeing. Suppressed by the rules of fair debate. Something like that...
AA: "It is a judgement call for everyone to make about what they say. You seem to be clear that we here have overstepped the line, but you cant offer your own solution to the problem."
Calling a response a judgement call for everyone is an open door. Why are we talking about each other or about the behavior of 911Blogger moderators or some contributors, if everything is considered a judgement call?
You're saying to me: "you cant offer your own solution to the problem." Do you mean I can't (I may not tell someone what to do?) or that I don't offer any solution? Because I did offer a solution almost all the time!
I was quite mad that our 'device' to challenge the lies of the mainstream media, named 911Blogger, was merchandising with fair rules and principles of distributing information. Exactly like MSM. How to beat MSM when the Truth Movement is doing the same? When such a co-project (911Blogger) subsequently denies contributions without giving any reason to contributors who put their efforts into it, they are betraying their own people.
That was reason for me to visit this site, where I recognized my own complaints. But my despise was little too recognizable. I was longing to see a better '911Blogger', perhaps the beginning of it. To compete with the old one for the better quality and the 'smartest' visitors. But I saw my own anger translated in a collective backfiring anger.
Yes, IMHO also on this website things appear to have overstepped the line. I prefer to say that the local culture on this website is evolved into a 'movement against' it's own predecessor. Because I considered the intentions as good, and saw the ability to respond with constructive critical contributions, I tried to spell my opinions into some valid arguments.
AA: "Also BTW If presentations are humorous ,IMHO it does actually negate personal insult to some extent"
Humor can go in both directions. Humor can also belittle the object being attacked or offended. Therefore I wasn't against humor, even called it valuable. I had in mind someone who suggested that Gretavo's tone and personal critics were a form of dark humor.
AA: "What I think is bad for the movement is trying to embrace people within it who are counter productive to increasing awareness or motivation for 911 truth."
Yes, I also think that will be bad! EMBRACING is the opposite of being insulted. In between there are universes to come and go ;-)) Anyway, I never suggested for a bit to embrace people who seem to be counter productive.
AA: "If people do that consistently over a long time they should be called out as damaging to the cause, and the more widely known that is the better."
1) If you think that 'calling out as damaging', by damaging opponents verbally is a better option, yes indeed we disagree profoundly. Because IMHO you just damage your own integrity and reliability and that from the truth movement.
2) But "calling out" indirectly by beating their arguments with better arguments, because arguments closer to the truth have BETTER chances, in that case we fully agree with each other.
Considering my full explanation over days, I fear that you go for the first option. Nevertheless I think we came far in bringing some clearing, which is an important purpose of discussion. Thanks!
Continue to sit tight...
...with that AA911Truth thing.
weird embedded vid from 911B
i was hoping to send the link around...
but there seems no way to share it other than copying the embed code wholesale... how weird...
911 video link
I figured out the link for that video..
http://www.archive.org/details/ProofOfControlledDemolitionsOfWorldTradeC...
cheers...
here's one...
...if YOU are accused of being an agent, infiltrator, etc., DON'T take it personally, and don't freak out on everyone. Let's face it, no one, especially a real infiltrator, likes to be called an agent. if you are NOT in fact an agent, the accusation has little chance of causing you any real harm, whereas if you ARE an agent and are called out, you might well have cause to worry. what this suggests to me is that if real activists let accusations slide off their back, then the real infiltrators will have to do the same or else risk appearing obvious. I've been accused of being an agent ever since I brought a video camera to my weekly antiwar demonstrations in 2003--recently some in the truth movement dredged up those very old and hilariously outlandish smears to try to discredit me. the smears are so transparently false that I have no problem with the accusations being made, because they say a lot more about those who post them (truthaction) than they ever could about me.
Seeking Truth After All These Years...
[I'll have to check to see about a registration request, but I'm assuming this really is Carol, so while I normally don't approve anonymous comments that claim a real identity, I'm making an exception! -gReT]
I tried to gain access to this website, but I don't think I will be allowed to post, but maybe I am just hopelessly unadept with computers and there is nothing particularly sinister in being unable to post to a site- I had to go through tremendous ordeals to post anything on multiple 9/11 Truth sites, so this is not unusual, but I would like to clarify who I am and why I am here.
I am Carol Brouillet, and I did organize the first march demanding a Congressional Investigation of 9/11 in January 2002. I organized the first San Francisco Citizen's Inquiry into 9/11 in March 2004, I helped found the 9/11 Truth Alliance and our local group, which is probably the oldest 9/11 Truth group, still actively meeting- the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and former Senator Mike Gravel attended our last meeting to push for a California 9/11 Truth Commission Ballot Initiative, which will be on the agenda of our upcoming meeting this Thursday.
I do know personally many, but not all of the activists, researchers who have been involved with the Truth Movement, over the course of the past 9 years. My website includes a very detailed history of my activism, as well as the local efforts in the Bay Area, and some of the other things we have done- like the Chicago 9/11 Revealing the Truth- Reclaiming the Future Conference, Arizona Accountability Conference, the Nat'l Media Reform Conferences.
I also publish the Deception Dollars, and prior to working on this issue, my main issue was changing the monetary system/global economics and I just spoke at the Monetary Reform Conference on Strategy for the Monetary Reform Movement, and I have written about Strategy for the Truth Movement, as well.
I'm currently reading DRG's latest book on Cognitive Infiltration and this morning I got a call from someone who wished to donate money to our local group who told me that this website was one that he followed, and frankly I had never heard of it before. I am busy, and usually don't read discussion blogs and I must admit that it is hard to decide which are the websites that should be included or bumped from the Deception Dollar- as I can't monitor all of them.
I have been attacked (not that I can see on this website) but on other websites, as well as in meetings, at events that I have organized for being "too radical" "too conservative" "not placing enough emphasis- or placing too much emphasis on almost every aspect of 9/11" ... And I really hate arguing over the individual aspects of 9/11- and doubt if there are two people in the movement who agree 100% on every single issue.
It's one thing to keep up a website, it is another to deal with flesh and blood people, organize marches, rallies, film festivals, events, order books, pay taxes, get the majority vote at meetings to allocate donations towards the "work." Much of that depends on "trust"- who does what, behavior, statements, actions, who is reliable, who shows up, who earns trust for helping out in a pinch, who is there rain or shine when needed.
In your long laundry list of who's who in the 9/11 Truth Movement- there are some notable people who are completely missing.
I wrote an article on money a long time ago and I'm going to quote it here-
"Near Findhorn, Scotland, some people were walking across a newly plowed field. As they turned to observe the sunrise, the light caught the dewdrops on the fragile spider webs on the moist dark earth. Only at that moment did they realize that the entire field was covered by one enormous vastly intricate network of spider's webs. Our own efforts, I believe, are invisible, too; only when the light of love shines clearly can we see how deeply connected we are to all people throughout the world, every liberation struggle, all people of faith, all people who strive to ease the world's suffering and to nurture those around them.
We must remember history, and realize how each of us has a role to play at this extraordinary moment in time."
Truth, love, concern, trust, there are these invisible forces which bind the truth movement... but I think the most powerful force is love, a heartfelt emotion, even when there is disagreement over the details, that we are trying to expose a horrible, violent lie, used to trick the entire world into going along with immoral wars, a growing police state- that anyone who genuinely loves life and cares about people, planet the future should oppose.
I do appreciate the efforts to discern the true from the false, the shills from the genuine truth seekers, the gullible from the rigorously discerning, disciplined intellectuals, but personally I think for me, it is a waste of my time to try to figure out who are the "cointelpro infiltrators" amidst the entire movement, because if I did that, I would have no time for anything else and nothing would get done.
However, I must say that, as the movement grows, I find it harder and harder to work with our local group; I encounter more and more resistance to my ideas, my projects, my leadership. Maybe this is for the better and I should work in other areas. I have found other channels for my activism- a radio show, the work on monetary reform... But maybe it is because our group is getting more "conservative" and wants to argue to death any proposal which it hasn't vetted completely. Is this "cointelpro?" Or is it just personality conflicts? I don't know. Imagine being at a meeting with Richard Gage, Ken Jenkins, Cosmos, John Wright (Leftright), Paul Rea, Mickey Huff, Victoria Ashley, Jim Hoffman, Chuck Thurston, Dave Heller, Bonnie Faulkner, Janette MacKinlay, Gypsey Taub, Maria Gilardin, Byron Belitsos, Gabriel Day, Bernie Rauch, Don Paul, Barrie Zwicker, Blaine Machan, hummux, John Fitzgerald, Joel Kohn, Sergio Lub, William Veale, Paul Bernadino, and 40 other strong personalities... In the San Francisco Bay Area these are the people who have come to our meetings, who have started their own websites, groups, and some no longer come to the meetings and some continue to come. We have our areas of agreement and disagreement- the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance website has been an embarrassment for years, because there is no "website committee" and there is no consensus on what should be included or omitted. I guess, in some ways, our little group is a reflection of the movement, and it is a miracle that we get anything done, but we do, we keep trying despite the differences, what we are up against is "so much bigger than us" we have to work together... and at the same time, there is this deep, heartfelt hope that truth, justice will triumph eventually, and we are on the right side of this battle... at least we can sleep at night, feeling that we are on the side of Life, Humanity...
Carol...
You are an inspiring writer and activist, without question. I might soon reply in more detail but here's a start...
you say "but personally I think for me, it is a waste of my time to try to figure out who are the "cointelpro infiltrators" amidst the entire movement, because if I did that, I would have no time for anything else and nothing would get done."
I respect your position on that score, but I must say that personally I do find time to do that. The time I spend online consists of 1) discussing "deep movement politics" on this site and 2) engaging the public (and the shills, both volunteer and paid) in news articles' comments section. In addition to this I try to do an hour a day of direct street outreach with a banner and flyers promoting AE911Truth.org. I have maintained more or less this same commitment for the last 7 years. Nevertheless I get accused of "doing nothing for the movement". I have lost track of how much money I've donated. I did keep track of how many deception dollars I handed out between 03 and 04 in Harvard Square--12,000. I did not at the time agree with every website listed on the note, but I know a great promotional gimmick when I see one, and the deception dollars are indeed ingenious vehicles for information-sharing. Wearing a burlesque rubber horse mask while giving them out was my own stroke of brilliance, however. :)
When I realized how much impact I as an individual could have, I decided that it mattered a great deal to me to share only the best information--in terms of accuracy and efficacy. For this reason I set up this site and began to produce my own outreach materials (GRAVITY OR EXPLOSION?, WHERE DOES THE EVIDENCE POINT?, WHY DID WTC7 COLLAPSE?)
I posted at 911blogger in the "haloscan days" and am user #86 at 911blogger.com (though since my account was last blocked I never bothered posting there again.) Just as you discovered that as the local movement grew it became more difficult to work together, so I found that the "greater movement" (online) became increasingly divded--not always by choice. It is natural for groups to subdivide as they grow--as natural as reproduction and evolution. We know, however, that an unnatural process of cognitive infiltration is very likely operating in parallel to this natural evolution, and perhaps where we disagree is in our assessment of the both the potential damge such a malicious effort can have AND our ability to counter it, and in the methods that best serve us in that cause.
All for now. Thanks, in any case, for initiating a dialogue.
Best wishes,
G
Improving our understanding and outreach...
Thanks for posting my post and allowing me on the site. I am glad that the Deception Dollars inspired others to come up with BETTER outreach materials! Ken Jenkins, in cooperation with the local group came up with the 11 Remarkable Facts About 9/11 cards, and now when we print Deception Dollars we print those too, on the same paper, as well as ae911truth.org's graphics on the WTC 7 card and the demolition of the Twin Towers. I believe the hope of the movement is actually to compete/cooperate on how best to improve our understanding and outreach. We should be applauding, encouraging the best efforts, materials, and be learning from one another. There's a huge difference between Constructive Criticism and shredding someone's effort. We also each have different skills, talents and it is a good thing that not everyone is focused on one single aspect of 9/11 and that some people follow paths of evidence that others simply don't have time for or haven't thought of... They do us all a service- if they are honest and diligent. If you heard William Pepper's talk about the 4 elephants in the room- military intelligence (who try to gain our confidence), the CIA/media (since they have this incestuous relationship which makes it hard to distinguish assets from assholes) who would like us to make mistakes which can blow up in our face and discredit us, and the elephants on our side- Truth (hard to conceal), the bulk of humanity...
It is hard for me to judge all the stuff that comes my way and to measure who is sincere, who is crazy, what is true, what is fake. I do believe that one aim of those seeking to neutralize or destroy the truth movement is to confuse, paralyze us, create unneeded tensions/frictions so that it is hard for us to reach consensus, work together, synergize multiple efforts across geographical distances/ideological boundaries/develop genuine trust- which often comes from knowing people personally.
I feel so inadequate to get the work done at a local level, that I have hesitated to try doing more organizing at the regional/national/international levels (although I do on rare occasions for a few of the conferences), but now with former Senator Mike Gravel spearheading a 9/11 Citizens' Commission in California, which he hopes will be copied by other states for the 2012 election- I think we need to think more strategically, locally, and statewide, as well as at the national/international level on where to put our time, resources, energy in 2011 (the 10th anniversary year) and in 2012. And this means we need to physically meet, figure out where we agree, so that we can enlighten, inspire, engage the public and not confuse, discourage, atomize the activists, as well as the public.
I have a lot of reading to do about the Populist Movement, the Initiative Process, Direct Democracy because I don't have any burning desire to lead anyone off a cliff.
Certainly one does have to have thick skin to do this work. Criticism is a constant, praise is rare. In the talks I have given on strategy I conclude with-
Wars have been fought in the name of religion. At the heart of most religions, is the most valuable lesson that I have learned in my lifetime- “ to forgive, to accept, to love” myself, people and the world.
In activism, when we are working on life and death issues, there is a lot of stress, some danger, and risk. People are doing the work because they care deeply. Most are volunteers; it is important to remember not to be too hard on ourselves and others. It is our genuine love of people and life which gives us our strength, power, and connects us all. Banish fear, laugh, let the journey we are on be our reward, enjoy the wonderful companions that we meet along the way. Together we can do what we cannot do alone. Be prepared for the long haul.
_______________________----
I am a Virgo and probably harder on myself than anyone else, and I think we really do have to learn how to be kinder to other people- especially those who are working at our sides- despite our disagreements. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do have a tendency to follow heart wisdom, rather than analyze a situation to death.
Hey Carol, welcome to WTCD!
I hope you become a regular contributor here. I have so much respect and admiration for you and am hard pressed to think of anyone else I know who has worked as hard and as long and as dedicated as you have for this movement - without a pay check for your efforts.
I used to attend the Santa Cruz 9/11 Truth meetings during 06 and 07, but got burnt out on local activist groups what with the seemingly inevitable personality conflicts and difficulty in coming to a consensus on things. I admire your tenacity, as I think you have way more patience and perseverance than I do in dealing with these conflicts.
Anyway, I just wanted to send some love your way and say that you are one of my long-time heroes in the movement. You have a big heart and it is felt and appreciated by many, so thanks for who you are and for inspiring so many others.
xerox!
well, apart from that bit about Santa Cruz.