"We Demand Transparency" Conference - Big Tent Failure

The following is an update to my previous post.

What was the "Real Change and Transparency Conference" has split into two separate and very different anniversary events in NYC.

"Real Change" Conference

"We Demand Transparency" Conference

Sander Hicks had tried to facilitate cooperation between Luke and Les. In the process their previous problems with one another were scrubbed from the internet. You can still find that episode of the movement's history archived here:

Original WeAreChange "Declaration of NY911Truth" - Jamieson v Rudkowki scrubbed

That cooperation appears to have been tenuous and broke down resulting in two separate events. And these events are very different. One appears to be reasonably credible in it's present form and the other does not.

While I have my differences with WAC and Luke, the "Real Change" Conference is BY FAR the more credible of the two events. Those organizing it had asked Bill Deagle to attend. However, it appears that upon discovering that he was a very controversial figure, they took him off the speakers list.

In contrast, the "We Demand Transparency" event has been adding people to their speakers list that are either divisive figures in the movement or who have undermined the movement in one way or another. I nearly jumped out of my chair finding that Cindy Sheehan, Donna Marsh O'Connor and Steve Alten had been added to the list of those participating.

Were Cindy Sheehan to attend, she would be participating in an event with people such as Barrett who defended those such as Webster Tarpley who called her a liar during the Kennebunkport Warning fiasco. And it was Les who allowed Tarpley to speak during the "Ready for Mainstream" conference where he labeled many committed movement figures as cointelpro agents.

Donna Marsh O'Connor, the mother of a 9/11 victim, signed the 2008 Declaration of Standards and Strategies which was largely a response to the "Ready for Mainstream" conference. It would be very unfortunate if anyone used her participation to impugn her judgment or character.

And Steve Alten seems to be more an opportunist than a sincerely committed participant in the movement. For a review of critical opinions of Steve Alten and The Shell Game have a look at this thread.

Barrett, Ranke, and Alten. Three people who I believe have done more harm than good for this movement. And all of this coordinated by Les Jamieson, responsible for the "Ready for Mainstream" conference. And Sheehan, O'Connor, and Sunjata. Three people who deserve a great deal of respect and should not in any way subject themselves to the potentially negative connotations of their participation or the bad press that might result.

How to respond? I would highly recommend two things. First, assuming the lineup remains reputable, that people in NYC attend the WAC event and not the Jamieson event. And second, that people who share any of my concerns make them known to the events organizers and those attending who may not recognize why their participation could have unfortunate consequence for them.

The Real Change and Transparency Conference

To my surprise, Sander Hicks was able to negotiate a truce between Les Jamieson and Luke Rudkowski, and the three of them are organizing the upcoming anniversary event in NYC. By itself this knowledge set me on edge with visions of Eustice Mullins and Mark Dice (promoted by Les and Luke respectively) representing the movement. My fears of a big tent event were recently confirmed when it was announced that they are considering inviting Kevin Barrett and CIT to participate. A bit of history ...

Back in 2007 we saw Les Jamieson organize the "Ready for Mainstream" conference in NYC. Some of us who had prior experience with Les knew that things would likely get ugly. Our concerns were met with skepticism as many outside of NYC didn't really understand our lack of trust in him. Les Jamieson, the director of NY911Truth now has a well established history of repeatedly promoting the worst this movement has to offer and being unresponsive to criticism and creative input. So it was no surprise to some of us when Jim Fetzer, Webster Tarpley, and Alfred Webre showed up on the tentative speaker list.

And the result? Tarpley decided to take the opportunity to launch a counter attack against those who were critical of his position on the Kennebunkport Warning, and directly accused prominent and committed activists, Cosmos, Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Micheal Woolsey, and Jon Gold, of being intelligence agents. His actions were no simple error in judgment and directly undermined the movement.

And I personally attended a lecture by Webre in which he suggested that turnout was low because the audience was being subjected to directed energy weapons. At the time, neither Les nor Hicks, who was hosting the event, had any kind of critical response. And no apologies were offered after the fact. While there were very few people in attendance, the event had quite an impact on the movement.

A few days later an article for the Weekly Standard was written that publicly exposed Webre's claim about directed energy weapons. We might like to think that the occasional excess in speculation won't bite us in the ass, but this example demonstrates the possible risks involved. There will always be people who dismiss our concerns, but it's very important that we offer them no credible reasons. And putting people on stage that are totally freakin nuts would be one of those reasons.

Soon after the event many people in the movement came forward to renounce the behavior of Webster Tarpley, the Kennebunkport Warning, and Les Jamison's insulated and inept management of NY911Truth. The TruthMove Declaration of 9/11 Truth Standards and Strategies was motivated largely by wanting to respond to that event as a flagrant example of intentionally divisive behavior. The conduct of speakers and the acceptance of that behavior by the events coordinators was totally unacceptable. Many of those who Tarpley had called agents, and others inspired by the event's negative impact on the movement came together to fashion a statement critical of the 'big tent' approach. A movement about truth does exclude certain notions and the people who cling to them beyond reason.

Presently we see this new event taking shape under the direction of people who, in the opinion of many, do not have a solid track record when it comes to organizing and representing the movement. And they have invited controversial figures to attend that are divisive within the movement, have a history of disruptive behavior, may serve to undermine the credibility of other speakers, and do not in my eyes appear committed to fact over speculation.

Kevin Barrett actively defends the 'big tent', while CIT certainly benefits from it. Both demonstrate that they consider it productive to promote information and speculation that is not essential and largely damaging to this movement. It seems intuitive that unity would be positive. But that unity can not violate the founding principles of the movement. A truth movement does not promote fallacy. Barrett and CIT do. And now, once again, they are provided a prominent venue with which to potentially extend that fallacy.

I can't know before hand exactly what will happen. But then again, based on past experience, I have a fairly solid track record anticipating drama. I hope very much that this event is productive and results in no animosity or bad press. However, I am stating for the record here that I consider these outcomes to be far more likely with Barrett and CIT attending.

If you have similar concerns please contact those involved and let them know how you feel about the decisions they are making.

Wasted Time - Citizen Investigation Team

I have fully reviewed the eyewitness testimony, videos, and other contents of the Citizens Investigation Team website. I've had a very extended online debate with Craig Ranke about his work. I have heard the opinions of many who support the efforts of the organization. And I have come to a conclusion.

CIT offers the movement no significant benefit and in fact does a great deal of damage.

Now it's not my intention here to retread all the reasons for my having reached that conclusion. That would be a waste of our time as most of those reasons are clarified elsewhere. Reasons that are recognized by a large number of the most thoughtful and committed of movement veterans.

Instead I want to convey my direct experience of having seen CIT create an unproductive distraction that wastes people's time and undermines our ability to recruit new participants and maintain our optimism.

Public distraction

Since the release of their online video "The Pentacon," CIT has continued to garner a fair amount of attention. That's particularly true when you compare how much more attention they have received than more factual resources such as "The Truth and Lies of 9/11." And with the support of various movement figures CIT has become a lot better known than the quality of their work would otherwise merit.

As a result, those newly investigating the problems with the official story are more easily lead away from the solid facts and distracted by speculation. And that speculation gives people who don't support our efforts even more reason to dismiss the solid facts we promote. That has been particularly evident to me during street action when the first thing out of people's mouths is, "So you are those people who think no plane hit the Pentagon." With such a bias in place those people are far less likely to explore the evidence.

The prominence of poorly founded speculation can also lead to new participants getting overloaded and confused. With all of the 9/11 truth media available it's very challenging for the uninitiated to get their head wrapped around what is and is not worth their attention. For that reason any prominent promotion of poorly founded speculation can really undermine our ability to recruit and retain new participants.

Movement distraction

While we might not expect the average person to get that far into analyzing or debating what CIT presents, those in the movement who hope to have a broad view of it's nature or who are invested as I am in upholding certain standards are more likely to research the matter, think about it's merits, and talk about it with others.

That is certainly productive to a point. As I said above, I took the time to examine the information presented by CIT. I wanted to determine it's merits and weaknesses so that I could share that with others. That in itself is no waste of time. You can't support what's good or counter what is bad without knowing about it first.

However, there is a threshold of time invested beyond which further discussion is very definitely unproductive. And I've passed it many times. As much as I enjoy discussion forums and e-mail, arguing in circles for hours is not a worthwhile endeavor. I feel fairly guilty when I consider how many hours I've wasted arguing with people unwilling to change their mind in any way. I could have been doing something more beneficial for the movement.

I've had my share of interaction with Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and others, who have argued in a similarly inflexible manner. They are totally sold on the merits of CIT's work. Arguments with Ranke were circular, only superficially rational, filled with subtle manipulation, and ultimately totally without much benefit to either of us.

I feel the same is true for much of the discussion that goes on in the movement on this topic. As I don't believe that the eyewitness testimony is of any great importance when compared to better established facts, I am very concerned that the movement not be wasting time the way I have on this matter. We really do have more important things to be concerned with.

Personal distraction

Finally, and related to the concerns above, are we letting our ego get involved? Are we thinking about how to win an argument when we should be concerned with other things? Are we allowing ourselves to be baited into wasting our time? Or arguing because it's something to do? Are we having a debate because we are bored?

This movement requires a certain amount of personal discipline. I've certainly been guilty of all of the above. I understand that our feelings and ego and personality can't be totally disassociated from these concerns. Pursuit of 9/11 truth is a very personal experience in some ways. And yet the scope of the movement is international. The goals are based on fundamental principles of justice. And the stakes are really high.

We have to be able to see past ourselves as we involve ourselves in this concern. We have to be able to shelve our personal desires from time to time for the sake of what is best for others. There aren't nearly enough people truly committed to this movement. We need everyone who is to try their best to keep their wits about them and stay focused on the big picture. We need to keep asking ourselves if what we are doing is good for us or for the movement. Hopefully both. But that's not always the case.

Ultimately I'm suggesting that we should all simply take CIT for what it's worth. Even if you happen to support their research I hope you will agree that there are more important lines of inquiry in the movement and more important things for us to be promoting. Don't allow a speculative concerns to dominate your time, energy, or concern for this movement.