[GPSCC-chat] agenda(?) topic

[Brian Good]

In the 9/11 Truth movement becausewe have widely divergent knowledge bases, interests, 
agendas, standards of evidence, and priorities of values, we often have bitter disagreements 
about effective strategies, associations, and style.  Many of us have a somewhat paranoid 
world view, many of us take on more work than we can do perfectly, and charges that some 
of us are infiltrating saboteurs are easily leveled and difficult to settle.

Experienced truth movement activists have widely accepted the principle that in conflicts we 
should focus on discussing counter-productive behaviors, and not on public psychoanalysis or 
speculations on the motivations of our adversaries, which can get into circular recriminations 
accomplishing nothing but disruption and ill will.  If we never arrive at a consensus about the 
proper psychiatric diagnosis of Joe Schmoe and we will never have proof that he is or is not 
paid by the DHS to disrupt us, debating these only wastes time and distracts from the 
important question of identifying and squelching counterproductive behaviors and activities.   
At best we gain only the understanding that Joe Schmoe is bad news--and we already knew 
that.  At worst we squander energy and out of sheer fatigue stampede into snitch-jacketing 
and embittering a useful ally.

Our experience with disruption leads us to set aside motivations and focus instead on whether 
the behaviors help us or hurt us.  Why discuss personalities if the behaviors have already 
been identified as harmful?  Debating behavior brings us to principles guiding all of us in 
effective cooperation in serving the goals of the movement.

An excellent statement of guidelines is posted here:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3227

Here's the section on disruptors:

Dealing with destructive and divisive behavior





1) Identify and critique behavior that is harmful to the movement (i.e. 
speculative theories without evidence and 
activists who engage in 
disruptive behavior, divisive incidents, etc). Challenge leaders who 
unreasonably continue 
to support and tolerate such damaging behavior.	





2) Refuse to debate solidly debunked theories by simply referencing 
responsible websites, articles, and blogs 
which have already refuted 
such claims





3) Discourage unnecessary and unproductive antagonism (i.e. infighting, 
personal attacks, gossip, etc.) that 
wastes time and causes 
divisiveness.





4) Avoid the divisive labeling of individuals and groups.(i.e. shill, agent etc)	





5) Be aware and vigilant concerning the presence of agent provocateurs 
within the movement. Do not engage 
in witch hunts or unsubstantiated 
accusations. Treat those who continually, and despite consultation, act 
in word
and deed in the manner of agent provocateurs, as such. While 
these people can rarely be proven to be agents, 
they should be treated 
as counterproductive and untrustworthy. Such groups and individuals 
should not be
engaged in unproductive ways, such as aggression, 
name-calling, personal attacks, etc. Instead, the substance 
of their 
destructive behavior should be detailed, after which they should be 
avoided when possible. If appropriate,
exclusionary action (banning from
 forums or groups, removal of links from websites, cancellation of 
speaking 
engagements etc.) or in extreme cases legal action should be 
taken. 





6) Do not allow the proliferation of irresponsible information or 
damaging behavior simply because the
individuals or groups in question 
maintain a certain reputation or notoriety within the movement. The fact

 that someone may “have done good work in the past” is never a valid 
excuse to tolerate damaging participation 
in the present. The movement 
must be about truth and justice rather than character and popularity.





In Summary: It is in our experience that group unity is not achieved by 
ignoring divisiveness. It is achieved 
through civil critique and a 
constructive response to the disruptive behavior. 





















 
 



Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:23:18 -0800
From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com
To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org; j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net
CC: sanda at greens.org
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] agenda(?) topic

In my opinion the main reason American Greens are deathly afraid of the centralization the having one Fuhrer is because many fear the Mike Feinstein or another similar  Narcissistic Personality Disordered individual like Mike would do to the national party what he has done to the California Green Party. Since Sanda is an enabler of Mike she probably would be very okay with that. I would not. If we ever choose to have co-spokespeople it must be more than one with limited power and never to be Mike Feinstein.  He is too power hungry and too anti-Green values to ever entrust that way, and even now he should be removed and banned from ALL leadership positions given the insanity he has imposed on the party consistently over many years.
http://JillStein.org
Drew
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20120122/b700fdd8/attachment.html>