July 28, 2009

Avoiding Burnout - Is This A Movement?

I've been banging my head against a wall. My 'head' is the vision I have and share with others of a more skeptical and effective movement. And the 'wall' is the daunting task of working with people who may not agree on anything other than the movement's basic premises. This movement brings together people from very diverse ideological backgrounds. Within that spectrum my ideal may be positive or even important, but if my participation is depending on impractical expectations I'm walking into a wall.

But if I can have no expectations is this really a social movement at all?

With so little agreement among participants on certain principles of logic and strategy it seems at times that we might all be captains of our own vessel. I'm sure most would say they hoped for an impartial investigation. And there are media we can point to and definitively say are products of the movement. But we won't agree on which one's to promote. And we wouldn't agree on the top or bottom ten 9/11 facts. And very importantly, we might not agree on the intended outcome of all our actions.

We could say that the movement was defined by it's result. But that view ignores focus on the future and improvement. Could we all agree that we want the movement to be stronger, or reach more people in a positive way? What is stronger? Do we even agree on positive? I'm not sure we do.

There are certainly large and overlapping groups within the movement that subscribe to one of many approaches. There's the "Press For Truth" crowd, and the CD crowd, and the AJ crowd, and those who want all of them standing under one big tent. Each of these groups are sizable yet in many ways do not work well together. And who says they should? Some of what we find is total fallacy. Personally, I think that the "Press For Truth" approach is the most effective. But others disagree. And not all that disagreement is based on ignorance of strategy.

What is a social movement without agreed upon motivations, premises, and goals? That certainly presents a lot of problems if it's the case. We don't look unified and our difference can be used against us. The movement can be characterized by it's weakest links. We can become distracted trying to iron out those differences instead of addresses the issues.

Ignoring our differences also presents a lot of problems. As I've previously argued, the 'big tent' is not a viable option. We have no reason to include everything. But that implies some kind of process for exclusion that does not seem to exist. And that's a primary reason why I've been banging my head against a wall.

Just because there are many definitions of this movement doesn't mean that every definition is valid. But there is little anyone can do to exclude what is most damaging or counter-productive. I've personally spent as much time publicly promoting the truth as I have countering fallacy within the movement. There have been a few salient victories. But overall, one of the main reasons for my feeling burned out at times has been my feeling that it's not possible to change the behavior or thinking of people with very different and sometimes invalid views.

I have a clear picture in my head of what would work best, but feel ever more removed from any power to act on that understanding. And feeling that way I get closer to just throwing in the towel.

However, two key insights prevent my quitting in frustration. Central to both of them is the basic fact that those in power very obviously consider our efforts to be a threat.

First, those attempting to obscure the truth want us to feel frustrated and burnout. A good amount of the division I mentioned above is due to intentional disruption. I may not know exactly how much of it, but there is no doubt that divide and conquer gets the job done. This movement is highly subject to infiltration. Most of those involved remain fairly oblivious to that fact, and it's generally unproductive to speculate about the intentions of others. But that doesn't negate the fact that there are many among us who are either keeping track of our efforts or trying to steer us in unproductive directions.

Second, the extent to which those in power by way of their mainstream media attempt to undermine our efforts very clearly demonstrates that at least some of what we do is a threat to them. At times it seems that they consider us more a threat that we might think we are. On a regular basis, seemingly irrespective of movement progress, we find that the MSM launches into a coordinated attempt to malign those involved in this effort. If we were truly irrelevant, we wouldn't find ourselves so often the subject of attack.

And so in some sense, whether or not what we have here is cohesive social movement, the power structure we are trying to impact seems to think it is. That doesn't necessarily make me all that much less frustrated about all the problems I see in this movement. But it does provide a basis upon which I can feel that all these disparate interest groups are presenting a common challenge to those who maintain the secrets we work to uncover.


Christs4sale said...

Some of my favorite comments from the NYC CAN thread:

..but the consequences. I just thought I'd be as frank about this as you are. We need to win people over AND have some quality control, not just the latter without the former...


You focus on individuals with the movement who you claim to have been "damaging." Do you not realize that the average citizen has never heard of Craig Ranke, Kevin Barrett, Webster Tarpley, and the Kennebunkport Warning? Even many (perhaps most) truthers are not aware of all the details of the infighting. But instead of "forgive and forget," you dwell.


You have a preoccupation with trying to divert people away from certain works, just because they might contain flaws. I was firmly convinced in 2005 by "In Plane Site," even though I was NEVER convinced about the pod or the cruise missile or the windowless plane. Simple premise: If even 10% of what IPS said was true, 9/11 would have to be an inside job. Yet you make a big deal of trying to convince WACLA to take IPS off its page.

You claim Citizen Investigation Team and their work is a "waste of time," yet you clearly "wasted" quite a bit of time yourself to write that not-very-short blog entry.

Some of these quotes are priceless. I think that most of the blogger posts against you are a combination of those who genuinely do not like a very critical environment with those who are intentional disrupters that are capitalizing on the former.

Arcterus said...

This article says a lot of what I've been thinking that until now I couldn't quite articulate.

Julian said...

Best response I could hope for. Thanks. I've had that brewing for a while. Personal attacks got me back to basic principles.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, the Truth Movement is really annoying. I searched this site for the word "PHYSICS" and got one hit and it was part of an HTML link. No one was actually talking about physics.

The trouble is science is supposed to be a TRUTH MOVEMENT. The people in this country that claim to understand physics have been making fools of themselves for the last eight years. The Truth Movement should have been marching on engineering schools instead of screaming "Inside Job" and "False Flaf".

The Laws of Physics are incapable of giving a damn about governments, ideologies, religions are even human beings. Did the A-Bomb care about the people in Hiroshima?

But if it was IMPOSSIBLE for a 200 ton airliner to destroy a 400,000 ton building in less than 2 hours the engineers in the nation that put men on the Moon should have figured it out and explained it by now. So why can't they even give us a table specifying the steel and concrete on every level by now? Maybe they are more interested in making their area of expertise look complicated by acting like this subject is debatable.

People talk and behave as though physics is what is in physics books. Physics is how reality works and what is in the physics books is SUPPOSED TO EXPLAIN reality.

If you think of the north tower as seven 15 story sections with an extra 5 stories imagine that you had the building intact and you could magically remove the 5 stories below the top 15 stories. That would be a 60 foot gap, far more damage than a plane and fire could possibly do. So 15 stories would fall for 2 seconds hitting the top of SIX 15 story sections at 44 mph.

But those SIX sections had to hold more weight lower down. That means more steel. That means more weight. So how does the lightest, weakest 15 story section crush SIX stronger and heavier 15 story sections and ACCELERATE AT THE SAME TIME?

The psychologists and psychiatrists have to explain why they were too dumb to figure this out in EIGHT YEARS.

Definitely the most peculiar event in PSYCHOHISTORY.