Adam1,
Welcome to the forum. Your frustration is felt by all of us here. You've certainly got the right attitude to make something happen. But I've found that experience in the movement tends to lead to understanding of that list that Truthmod presented. But that's not to suggest that bigger things can't and shouldn't happen.
One thing to keep in mind. If you are including issues other than just 9/11, the 'Truth Movement' does not really exist yet. It's just a concept in a few broadly considerate minds. TruthMove has been trying to get people to use this term independently of '9/11 truth movement', as we feel strongly that we are sitting on a premise that could provide the kind of unification implied by the term.
The 'Truth Movement' in our eyes emerges from the potential for most progressive and many traditional movements to unify around their shared investment in informed consent.
"...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
If you think about it, and we certainly have, informed consent is just about the best summary of what we are all trying to promote. All these movements want people to have more information, most of which is not being conveyed well by mainstream sources, in order that they can make more rational decision that will greatly impact all our future. It also implies transparency of government, democratic process, and an independent media. The anti-war movement wants these things. The environmental movement wants these things. The election reform movement wants these things. The 9/11 truth movement wants these things.
Just saying 'Truth Movement' could really be too general without a simple and unifying definition such as this. And here's the important point. Being a part of the 'Truth Movement' does not imply sacrificing your investment in your specific movement. We are not arguing that people should abandon their interests to join the 'Truth Movement'. That wouldn't get us anywhere. We are arguing that they already share these priorities, and should ALSO work together toward a common goal essential to each movement.
So that's a central part of the definition of 'Truth Movement' that we feel has some conceptual teeth. Some potential influence. But it seems that no matter how many times we push this concept, that it is taking others recognizing its importance on their own that has brought people closer to making it a reality.
Here's the good news. It seems like people are ready for something like this. In the last year, we have seen many in the 9/11 truth movement showing an interest in making connections with other movements. We have seen people in the movement begin to acknowledge that 9/11 alone is just one piece of the puzzle. And I think we have seen some people acknowledging that TruthMove might be onto something.
But...to get down to the active side of things. We don't have a lot of people volunteering to help us. And I know a central reason why. The same reason that people haven't been trying to unify with other movements is the reason why its been challenging for us to attract volunteers. People want to focus on a specific subject that is familiar and important to them personally. Our concept is new and broad and I think does not appeal to many who have not yet come to a point where they recognize the importance of this kind of conceptual unification. Once again, we see that changing, but rather slowly.
However...recently things have been looking up. That conference in Santa Cruz has a mission statement that sounded particularly like our mode of thinking. And we've seen several prominent organization and activist making statements acknowledging that 2008 has to be the year in which we create more unity. I think its in the air. And, the last year of the Bush presidency is certainly an important time for us to be promoting the truth.
I'm not sure than any one group needs to step forward as you suggest to lead everyone. This movement has been growing by the creation of local groups. And there does seem to be a lot of ego involved in that. For this reason, I think it all the more important that we promote something that rides parallel to that structure instead of replacing it. Let people have their individual groups, but get them on board for something we can all agree on.
So if there is going to be a national or even international effort to unify people who are all invested in a common goal we need a few things.
A useful and unifying definition for the 'Truth Movement'. One example provided above.
A promotional campaign dedicated to securing wide support among diverse movements. We need people to be members of the truth movement in addition to their local concerns. If TruthMove were coordinating this effort we would also need more people dedicated specifically to this cause.
Some kind of regular action, like the TruthAction 11th of the month campaign, that gives the movement some kind of active structure. It can't just be conceptual. There has to be an activity involved and it has to have a really solid and unifying premise. Pushing for media independence is a good example as that is equally important to all movements and central to informed consent.
Not any one leader, but a few core people very capable and dedicated to the task.
TruthMove has been trying to set down the structure to facilitate this kind of movement forward. But we just haven't yet found the kind of support we need to push things to the next level.
Maybe we aren't the group that is going to make all this happen. We'd certainly like to see someone take this ball and run with it. We'd be running cover. But we also haven't seen that anyone else has conceptualized this in a manner we feel is likely to take hold. And the key problems we see are many of those Truthmod pointed out.
People get something going but then don't maintain humility. People have the right idea, but don't have the ability to put it into terms that many would find compelling. People have their one pet theory they want to include that spoils the pot. People have cultural biases that prevent them from working with people of different backgrounds.
Anyway, we're on the same page with you about the problem. And we've come to believe that no one is the world is any more likely to pull this off that we are. So we might as well aim high, do our best, and see what happens.
Right now TruthMove is trying to take our next big step forward by holding public meetings on a weekly basis. NYC only has one gig in town, and that ny911truth, Les Jamieson, and St. Mark's church. TruthMove and WeAreChange both came about after splitting with that group as Les was too controlling and limited growth and innovation. Nick Levis recently called him the 'anti-organizer' for this reason. As a result, there is a vacuum in this city for greater coordination around these issues. While its very difficult for us to find a venue, we are committed to finding one, and holding a weekly news/education/organizing meeting. There are actually dozens of people such as ourselves who we regularly meet during out street action, who used to go to St. Mark's but stopped because of Les. They are waiting for something better.
Once we get a venue, we've got 911truth.org ready to promote it and our group as the primary contact in NYC. That's relatively huge. I've actually been looking into venues, and we have a number of options if we can muster $25 an hour for the space and find one that isn't opposed to our politics.
I don't know if any of that is encouraging. But we're certainly doing the best we can to move in the direction that you spoke of above.
If you have any ideas for how we should all proceed toward formulating a viable 'Truth Movement' we would certainly really appreciate hearing them.
Thanks for joining the conversation here.