Is the widely esteemed 9/11 scholar David Ray Griffin really an evil disinfo agent sent to discredit “sensible” (unknown and/or anonymous) 9/11 truthers with his crazy theories? 9/11 truth infighting once seemed tragic – but is it now repeating itself as farce? What can we do about this kind of lunacy, other than laugh it off or ignore it?
First hour: Do we need a new 9/11 news and discussion website, now that 911blogger has banned most sensible voices and is dominated by sad little people who think David Ray Griffin is disinfo? Guests: Jonathan Mark of FlybyNews and Adam Syed of the forthcoming 911Discussion.com.
Jonathan Mark has been hosting teleconferences for 9/11 truth movement leaders for years, knows the ins and outs of the movement well, and has generally taken the sensible middle ground on hot-button issues. Professional musician Adam Syed (like me and dozens if not hundreds of others) was banned from 911blogger.com for no good reason, clearing the way for the current situation there; he is developing 911discussion.com as a rigorously fair-minded (I hope) alternative to 911blogger.
Second hour: Ken Jenkins of 911TV.org, author of The Truth Is Not Enough: How to Overcome Emotional Barriers to 9/11 Truth. Ken’s efforts as David Ray Griffin’s videographer, leader of the push to get 9/11 truth videos on public access TV, and expert on the psychology of 9/11 truth have been among the most important contributions to the movement. Today, he’ll put his psychological insight to work on potential solutions for, or at least insights into, the problem of infighting in social movements in general and the 9/11 truth movement in particular.
* * *
Note: I recently emailed an informal survey about the controversy over CIT and the Pentagon to fifteen 9/11 truth movement leaders whose judgment I respect, namely: Bob Bowman, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Ian Henshall, Steven Jones, Annie Machon, Enver Masud, A.K. Dewdney, Elias Davidsson, Sander Hicks, Anthony Hall, Peter Dale Scott, Paul Zarembka, Niels
Harrit, and Barrie Zwicker.
The results were split down the middle in almost every way imaginable. Some admire CIT’s work, others deplore it; most are somewhere in-between. Some thought my survey was a good idea, others felt it would just throw fuel on an already destructive fire.
The lesson I draw is that there should be some sort of truce by which people with different opinions, but a shared opposition to the official narrative, should remember/assume that we are all on the same team. A few proposed rules:
* Nothing but constructive criticism for anyone who opposes the official narrative.
* If you disagree with someone’s opinions or research, contact them privately with a friendly constructive critique before going public. (Phone contacts are best, since email lacks the warmth and inflection of the human voice, and tends to degenerate into flame wars.)
* No more “disinfo” accusations.
* No more hiding behind pseudonyms; use your real name and post a public bio or withdraw from the movement. (Imaginary entities have an unfair advantage over real people in on-line conflicts, and are the perfect vehicle for cointelpro-style infiltration.)
* Always be ready to accept mediation and talk things out with other truth movement people.
* Try to take a realistic view of the fact that some people are more busy/accomplished/famous than others, and show appropriate respect, deference, and/or compassion for those people. (In other words, don’t take up their time unless it’s absolutely necessary or clearly useful. For example, starting CC email chains with well-known names is not a good idea!)
So…what do you think? Should we put these rules into effect as of today? Require authentic truth movement members to take down past posts with violations of these rules, when requested? Have I missed any other rules that might be beneficial?
Even if we don’t get a general agreement to abide by these rules, they may serve as useful guidelines in evaluating the efforts of our fellow truth-seekers.