AA: Agree with everything you say here and in your reply to me, and I am very encouraged by what you have to say, as I have felt recently that this movement is so divided and disorganized that it has little chance to effect change which is the only thing I am interested in.

LW: While I agree that the truth movement it is more disorganized than I would like I don’t think it is as nearly as divided as some people portray it to be. The single most divisive issue within the movement stems from all the unfortunate speculation about what happened at the Pentagon. However, I think that most people who have studied the evidence will admit that they don’t have enough credible information regarding the events at the Pentagon to have sufficient certainty about what actually happened, and will agree that this is one of the many reasons we need a real investigation into the events of 9/11/01. There is, however, a very small minority of people who are so certain of their position (on both sides of this issue, I hasten to add) and/or who have an ego investment in their particular theory, that they unnecessarily polarize the issue. I share the opinion of many that the event at the Pentagon was, quite likely, designed to be divisive.

Most human beings do not like not knowing, as it can be very frustrating. We like a narrative that makes sense and fits our basic world view. This is why the Zelikow narrative has been so effective to date. The longer we don’t know the more frustrated we become and the more some of us take that frustration out on each other, or withdraw from that which frustrates us. This is an irrational reaction to not knowing. This is why I always remind myself that humans are inherently irrational/emotional beings, and allow for this. An objective critical thinker sets the issue aside until additional information becomes available, revisits it when new data appears and may or may not revise their working hypothesis based on this new information.

AA: I would like to bring up one point though, which is that you put some disagreements into the category of personality, and suggest that constant personal attacks are not allowed. The trouble is that if a person dominates discussions,or lets say a particular website, and his theories are the embodiment of everything you disagree with, and they then place themself in the public eye as a leader of the cause you believe in. If they make grandiose undemocratic statements that your movement has to change direction, and promote a new agenda which you disagree with, then you might take the time to focus your efforts on challenging that person's ideas in discussions.

Though you may feel you have 'won' those discussions and shown that the majority of people do not agree with what the person is still saying, if they still continue to dominate the movement and represent their minority view publicly as a leader of the movement , at what point do further comments aimed at that unrepresentative dominance become personal attacks?

LW: Ok, now I think we are getting into the heart of much of the disagreements that I have witnessed on 911blogger and elsewhere. Language is very important here, so we need to be very clear about what we mean or we will only end up talking past each other and this will only create greater misunderstanding and further frustration. Let’s take your points one by one, seek greater clarity where needed and see if we can come to an understanding of what the real issues are and, if they need to be addressed, how to best address them.

AA: I would like to bring up one point though, which is that you put some disagreements into the category of personality, and suggest that constant personal attacks are not allowed.

LW: Yes, I ascribe a great many disagreements to simple personality clashes and yes, I hope that most people would agree that personal attacks, especially those based on simple personality clashes, are not useful and are detrimental to a site like 911blogger.

AA: The trouble is that if a person dominates discussions,or lets say a particular website, and his theories are the embodiment of everything you disagree with, and they then place themself in the public eye as a leader of the cause you believe in.

LW: Ask yourself how is this person dominating discussions on a particular website? Then ask yourself what should be the response of the moderators? We can’t really do anything about how often someone posts, that is their right and we aren’t going to put some kind of artificial limit on the number of posts any one person can make on a thread. Thus, if you truly feel you need to counter someone’s argument you simply make the best counter argument you can (within the site rules) as often as you feel you need to and trust that intelligent readers will make up their own minds. To my mind the key here is trusting the other readers to see the flaws and rhetorical techniques that said person may be using to make their arguments. If you feel that someone is using spurious arguments to make their case or side-step the issue at hand, point this out. Just do so in a civil, non-personal manner.

Somehow I don’t think you really mean “theories”, I really think your disagreement is with the approach to activism that others may be taking, yes? Once again, isn’t everyone entitled to take the approach to activism that they think is best? While it is reasonable, and even a good idea, to debate the relative merits of different approaches to activism (and research), in the end people are going to take the approach to activism that makes the most sense for them and that they feel comfortable with. All you can really do is to put your ideas out in the marketplace as best you can and let everyone choose what they think is best.

How do leaders emerge in grassroots movements? Can anyone really “place themselves” as a leader in a truly grassroots movement? Some may try, but once again, the movement at large will organically decide who its leaders are over time. The truth movement is based on critical thinking. I think you need to trust the critical thinking skills of your fellow brothers and sisters in the movement to see who the real leaders are and not be overly concerned with people who try to frame themselves as leaders. One of the strengths of the truth movement is that we are all leaders in our own way at some level.

AA: If they make grandiose undemocratic statements that your movement has to change direction, and promote a new agenda which you disagree with, then you might take the time to focus your efforts on challenging that person's ideas in discussions.

LW: Once again, I think you need to trust the intelligence of your brothers and sisters within the movement. Most of us will spot anything that even remotely smells of tyranny from ten miles away. If someone espouses ideas or an agenda that you disagree with, of course you should critique it as best you can and offer alternatives. Just keep it civil, to the point and let everyone make up their own mind. Isn’t that what democracy is?

AA: Though you may feel you have 'won' those discussions and shown that the majority of people do not agree with what the person is still saying, if they still continue to dominate the movement and represent their minority view publicly as a leader of the movement , at what point do further comments aimed at that unrepresentative dominance become personal attacks?

LW: I think you need to step back and really analyze what you’ve said here. How can someone who presents a “minority view” dominate (i.e. control the majority) the movement? This makes no sense. They may be trying to convince the majority of the movement that their approach or ideas should be adopted by the majority, but isn’t that what many, if not most, of us try to do? Isn’t that everyone’s right? I get the sense that you’re either letting someone make you feel unnecessarily insecure about your position or you lack confidence in the movement to choose the most effective approaches.

You will always come across people who are stubborn and think they know best, this is part of being human. My advice is to make your points very civilly and move on. Don’t let their stubbornness frustrate you to the point where you lose focus or react to them in ways that undercut your own position.

The bottom line here is make your arguments as best you can and trust that others in the movement will choose wisely. That’s really all any of us can do.

I look forward to reading your considered response.

Regards,

John