Interventionism vs. CIA: Should Truthers Disrupt, or Pursue Civil Information Activism?

What do YOU think about the LA 9/11 truthers’ disruption of Bill Maher http://www.911blogger.com/node/1208 and mnchange.org’s disruption of Bill Clinton http://www.911blogger.com/node/12210?page=1 ?

That’s the question I’m addressing in a series of radio shows, including today’s conversation with Peter Thottam, a Los Angeles lawyer, truther, and impeachment activist who participated in the Bill Maher intervention: http://www.911blogger.com/node/1208 I’ll be interviewing Peter on Dynamic Duo, 4-6 pm CT, today, Friday 11/9, at http://www.gcnlive.com network 4. Call-in number (866) 582-9933

On Tuesday’s 9/11 and Empire show (archived at http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett07.html) I interviewed Anthony, Nick and Brian of http://www.mnchange.org, who heckled Bill Clinton recently: http://www.911blogger.com/node/12210?page=1

And on next Monday’s Dynamic Duo show I’ll give the other side a forum. Doug Brinkman of Calgary 9/11 Truth and other guests will argue that disruptions can be counterproductive, and that the 9/11 truth movement should stick with “civil information activism” (CIA)—having polite conversations, passing out DVDs, and so on. (Monday’s originally scheduled guest, author G. Edward Griffin, has been rescheduled for the following Monday 11/19—for my complete radio schedule see http://www.mujca.com/airwaves.htm)

My own experience suggests that being civil is a good idea. My civil confrontation with Amy Goodman http://www.911blogger.com/node/11700 was far more successful than my disruption of David Horowitz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE8D7tbN6nY.

Why did I disrupt Horowitz? Well, what would you do if you were a 1940s German and Goebbels came to your town? What would American Jews do if a nationally-prominent speaker came to their town to thunder about Jews drinking the blood of Christian babies and cheer on the murder of a million Jews? You and I both know that that speech would never be made—it would get shut down, whether by hecklers and rioters, or by JDL violence. Yet when a leading cheerleader for the ongoing genocide against Muslims (one million dead in Iraq alone so far) comes to hype 9/11, the biggest blood libel in history, we’re supposed to sit quietly till the end and ask polite questions? NO MORE DOUBLE STANDARDS I say. If an equivalent blood libel against Jews would be shut down, we need to shut down the blood libel against Muslims by equally forceful means. I salute the students at Emory University who gave the American Goebbels the welcome he deserved.

So in the case of Horowitz/Goebbels, I think a strong moral case can be made for disruption. But my own disruption, while a moral success, was politically unsuccessful, because the audience included a large number of pro-genocide brainwashing victims as well as a larger number of “good Germans” who tolerated the mass murderer and helped disrupt the disruption. In terms of being politically effective, I might have been better off either organizing an Emory-style uprising, or staying home.

The trade-off between moral correctness and political effectiveness is obviously an important consideration in making decisions about whether and how to intervene. Regardless of how civil we decide to be, I strongly believe that every single time the official 9/11 myth is brought up, anywhere, by anyone, whether implicitly or implicitly, we need to immediately stand up and say “you have just repeated the biggest blood libel in history; you now share the guilt for a genocide that has already claimed a million victims.” Students in high school and college classes MUST stand up and immediately interrupt their teachers every time the teacher refers to the blood libel as if it were true. Audiences at speeches MUST immediately stand up and question the 9/11 blood libel every time it is mentioned in any public speaking forum. Studio audiences at television shows must do the same thing.

That is my opinion. I think the moral considerations dictating that we speak out against the 9/11 blood libel every time it is brought up are paramount. When considering a particular intervention, the burden of proof should be on those who argue that it will be politically counterproductive. If their argument is strong enough, and we are forced to agree that the proposed intervention is likely to be seriously counterproductive, then we should decide not to intervene. But if the ultimate political ramifications are unclear—as I think they were in the Maher and Clinton interventions—I think we should cheer on those who intervene.

But wait, you say—how could the Maher and Clinton disruptions not be counterproductive? I think the audiences exposed to these events were left with an ambivalent reaction: On the surface was the obligatory “boo, you crazy disruptors, get outa here” while beneath the surface was “wow, this is fun! I was here for an extraordinary event! Those people have cojones...I wonder why they feel so strongly about Building 7?”

Since I went on Fox News to spar with Hannity and O’Reilly, I have been contacted by many people who ridiculed me while they were watching the broadcast, but later were moved to do their own research and ultimately came around to the 9/11 truth side. I think the same dynamic holds for the Maher and Clinton interventions. I think we should keep doing these interventions—but we should pick and choose our battles, intervene in relatively civil ways most of the time, try to keep a sense of humor and a light touch, and remain open to arguments put forward by the Civil Information Activism supporters. But I’m open to re-thinking this--as is today's radio guest Peter Thottam. Perhaps Doug Brinkman and his friends will change my mind on on Monday’s Dynamic Duo show.

You can't be serious...

"So in the case of Horowitz/Goebbels, I think a strong moral case can be made for disruption. But my own disruption, while a moral success, was politically unsuccessful, because the audience included a large number of pro-genocide brainwashing victims as well as a larger number of “good Germans” who tolerated the mass murderer and helped disrupt the disruption. In terms of being politically effective, I might have been better off either organizing an Emory-style uprising, or staying home."

“you have just repeated the biggest blood libel in history; you now share the guilt for a genocide that has already claimed a million victims.”

You can't be serious...

This is basic common sense. If you attack someone, they are even more less inclined to change their views. This is basic psychology 101.

Instead of screaming at your opponent, give them the facts. That's a real strategy.

But then again, you've already made this point

"The way I study [social interaction] is through dialog... I think we could use a little more conviviality within the Truth movement... one reason for that is that we want people to join us... by reaching out to them in a conviviality way... people will come on board... I think we need to enjoy dialog including with people that we don't agree with... [especially] non-9/11 truth people... I want dialog with [people who support the official story]--dialog is good... this is the key to the politics that we need to practice..."
Kevin Barrett http://www.truthring.org/?p=4830

To those who vote me down, you are missing my point.

If you accuse someone of "blood libel" it makes you look irrational. 9/11 truth is hard enough for some people to grasp without these kinds of comments.
______________________________
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com

Why Activism WORKS!

Original Founder of 911 blogger dz writes on how loud and direction questions on 911 inspired him to investigate further.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://911blogger.com/user/1

i began my research into 9/11 around September of 2004 after seeing Christopher Brodeur standup and shout demands for information during a public hearing of the 9/11 commission on CSPAN.. his loud and direct questions surrounding the wargames of 9/11, and pointing out past ties between the CIA and Al-Queda immediately sparked my interest into the subject and made me realize that despite my personal experiences surrounding 9/11 i was not fully aware of the questions surrounding that horrible day.

Christopher Brodeur demanding some real questions of Rudolph Giuliani

since that time i have spent months and months researching 9/11 through reading books, watching documentaries, researching 9/11 related articles, etc. etc. only after 3 solid months of research did i come to grips with the possibility that our government was covering up several disturbing points surrounding 9/11..

in general the average joe is unaware of many different points surrounding 9/11 and has not taken it upon themselves to do the research about 9/11 which it demands. while most people have their hands full just dealing with day to day life, i am in a position to dedicate my free time to 9/11 related study.. it is quite understandable that most people do not question 9/11, i didn't myself.. only through the efforts of others, Christopher Brodeur specifically in my case, will the public come to realize the questions which still remain surrounding that fateful day. i can only hope that i might help bring in other concerned Americans to pay attention to 9/11 and join in the effort to ask questions and demand answers.

Original founder of 911blogger.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch the video : Giuliani Hears 'your government trained and funded Al-Qaeda' at end of Commission Hearing

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/051904giuliani911.htm

Eleventh public hearing of the 9/11 Commission, with testimony by Fmr. Mayor Rudy Giuliani. See the family members of the victims chastise the whitewash commission, where a family member of a victim says, "remmeber this, your government trained and funded Al-Qaeda" - as the rest of the 9/11 families applause.

Christopher Brodeur (R) yells from the audience as an unidentified woman (L) is removed by security personnel as they disrupt the end of testimony by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani at a public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, in New York City May 19, 2004. Local officials were testifying on the city's response to the attack on the second day of the two-day hearing. REUTERS/Mike Segar

Demonstrator Christopher Brodeur disrupts the Sept. 11 commission hearings and the testimony of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani , in New York, Wednesday May 19, 2004. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)

Demonstrator Christopher Brodeur, left, is surrounded by the media outside the Sept. 11 commission hearings after he interrupted the testimony of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani , in New York Wednesday May 19, 2004. At his left is civil rights attorney Norman Siegel. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull)

Sally Regenhard, whose son Christian died in the World Trade Center, holds up a sign as former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani speaks during the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.(AFP/Timothy Clary)

Sally Regenhard yells from the audience in protest during testimony by former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani at a public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, in New York City May 19, 2004. Regenhard, lost her son Christan, a firefighter, in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. Local officials were testifying on the city's response to the attack on the second day of the two-day hearing. REUTERS/Peter Morgan

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Bill Maher "reran" an edited version.....

....of the "911 Inside Job" audience protest last night with the protest edited out!

Make of that what you will.

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

Thanks for the false dicotomy, but you shouldn't have

"The trade-off between moral correctness and political effectiveness"

Bollox--there is no "trade off" but what that you're trying to re frame into existence. So what you're saying is:

calm debate in a studio setting = moral correctness, which is implied to NOT be politically effective
public confrontation = political effectiveness, which is implied NOT to be morally correct

Did I miss anything, Kev?

Like I said, bollox. Both have their places, both can be politically effective and both have moral Authority.

Re civil because we seem to have a TERMINAL misunderstanding in the movement about the use of this word:

"Civil" has a cultural connotation of being "nice", but it's use in political circumstances simply means being professional and sticking to the facts:

"civil often suggests little more than the avoidance of overt rudeness "

from detail at http://m-w.com/dictionary/civil

So, yes, you can shout "civil" demands for accountability--done all the time on the floor in the House of Commons. (Mind, there's plenty rudeness there too...;-P)

Try shouting "Sir! You are quoted saying "pull it" which is a known demolition term! Can you explain why you said this if WTC7 collapsed just from fire, sir?"

There's nothing weak or nicey nicey sounding about it if shouted in a public place where shouting issues is expected or strategically necessary--but, strictly speaking, it is "civil". ;-)
______________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

Yes. I agree.

To quote.

" Both have their places, both can be politically effective and both have moral Authority." End quote.

You are right.

Let's not be afraid of this guy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it