Open Letter to BTM founders, associates and members:
What does BTM do? Why does it exist?
We are all excited at the prospect of our liberating invasion of mainstream media, but what are our roles as members? Are we a part of this media revolution or are we just bystanders along for the ride?
So far, since BTM has gone online, I have seen a lot of "conspiracy" theories, liberation discussions, banter, callousness, friendliness, and unique discussion from an eclectic grouping of minds - but I have not seen BTM truly define what it is that this site should establish as a goal, and thus, no real direction for the members to focus their goal.
We're all tied to a common man, Ron Paul, and a common set of Libertarian ideals of freedom from tyranny, but what are we giving to the visitors who don't understand or know what the Libertarian principles mean? Our site and forums are principally driven by and participated in by RP supporters almost exclusively.
As such, I am proposing that we, as a community, give out the information that needs to be given out. That we take the time to clearly outline what Ron Paul's visions and goals really mean, that we stand up as a single cohesive unit to inform the masses, and then we bring the masses to us. We need to create objective arguments not to bash the McCains, Clintons, and Obamas; but rather to inform them and give them a reason to want to learn more, to engage in curious dialogues, and to really understand that their views are probably more Libertarian than they understand.
Rick and Trevor, I am placing the challenge on you both to not let this become just another Ron Paul site that the average Joe dismisses as being another "kook" site. Identify your site authors and charge them with putting forth the information and for breaking down the principles outlined in books like "The Revolution". Book bombing is great, but what have we accomplished by creating a frenzy of book sales for a book that the average person might overlook simply because they don't know or trust the name on the cover or the picture on the back - We've succeeded in informing the informed and those who are willing to be informed... And while that is an outstanding thing, I'm not convinced it is entirely helpful. At the time I write this, here are the top content "Headlines" pulled from the forums (displayed on the home page):
22 Iran Ends Oil Transactions in U.S. Dollars
16 Ron Paul on Fox News
13 U.S. Beats War Drum as Iran Dumps the Dollar... Kinda Huge News
11 A Million Votes for Ron Paul
7 Council orders man to take down Jolly Roger
6 BJ Lawson has won the NC Primary!! Let Freedom Ring!!
6 Iran rejects nuclear inspections unless Israel allows them
5 Do YOU have a plan?
5 Pandemic flu threat remains substantial, experts say
5 Two thirds of Brits think the green agenda has been hijacked
In every posting, there is nothing except perhaps the Neil Cavuto/Ron Paul interview (Ron Paul on Fox News) that is even remotely associated with spreading the messages of liberty (but even then, the "Ron Paul" in the title might be a turn-off), or is attractive to the general visitor who stumbles upon or is directed to the site. In fact, this comes across as almost satirical or propaganda(ish). In addition, there is no original content, instead, is info posted from sources all over the internet.
In short, since you are creating a media service, it's time to be that media service, and really put forth the news. The good, the bad and the ugly. Create original content centralized around the concepts of liberty, and use that to feed home page "Headlines" instead of actively trafficked forum topics.
Let me be clear in saying that I absolutely appreciate this site, its members, and everything you stand for; but without defined goals and direction, then we're just another social network site with a bunch of informed geeks who have a ton of information to share and nobody with whom to share it. In my opinion, the members should be involved to the nth degree and not just using this as their gathering spot.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson
DeltaRho2K
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 562 reads
Conspiracy Theories should be left somewhere else? Why allow liar client privilege or executive privilege that easy? Through scientific methodology the political can be reified and concluded.
I never saw a plane hit the Pentagon. Did you?
This can be proven, correct?
Good thread, with lots of useful ideas. Choosing and posting content and starting forum threads, we believe, are primarily things our members do. This, in itself, defines what the daily flow of site content consists of, and frames the discussion topics for member commentary and debate. As far as talking about BTM itself, and our mission and goals, we have posted a lengthy collection of articles under the "About BTM" icon on the home page. Anyone is free to comment on these writings. These articles will remain in place, as a resource for anyone interested in learning more about BreakTheMatrix, its goals, and how we plan to achieve those goals. We plan to periodically add updates about BTM as new things develop. R
These are all essays I wrote for Nolan Chart which I own. These types of essays, written by regular folks and expressing their reasons for wanting smaller, less intrusive government would enhance this site. All of these are available by my permission to be reposted...
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3684.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article883.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article766.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article363.html
http://www.nolanchart.com/article369.html
you have talent.
very well written.
you should post these pieces here as well.
Yes, this type of stuff would definitely enhance the site. And everyone else's articles that they've already posted here. It's all great and each a puzzle-piece that's part of a bigger picture.
All of us have a vioce, and I think that every article on here is important (we just need to make sure and do our own research so we are not spreading lies like the MSM).
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
Why don't we just have a new section specifically for articles found on the internet?
I can relate to your questions and I am very glad that you took the time and effort to start this thread. I know it is something I hope to see developed.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
Delta, in this thread, we are not trying to substantiate claims of this or that conspiracy theory. We are discussing the validity of discussing conspiracy theories. Although we can have that discussion if you would like, in this context, it would not be appropriate to provide you with bibliographic information to support any particular conspiracy theory.
It is my contention that conspiracy theories, in general, should not be dismissed as irrational and relegated to taboo status for the sake of appearances. Is it really necessary to quote Tragedy and Hope to support that contention? I don't think so.
God bless,
Nick
Quotable quote:
"Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment"~?
Therein lies the problem then. If you don't substantiate the claims, then why even talk about it? What purpose does it serve? Presenting a claim as fact without substantiating it (or at least disclaiming it) is a huge turn-off, wouldn't you agree? Like I said, it's in how it is presented... a "kooky" conspiracy theory, or a "conspiracy theory that is debatable...
I think the problem I see is a blindly posted re-post of a "conspiracy theory" article without adding anything substantial... no commentary, not side-bar, nothing... Now, if someone jumped on it and supported it before a visitor happened upon it, then that'd be one thing, but there's no guarantee of that.
I'm not saying we have to window dress our discussion and only address main stream things at all. I'm not even saying we should only speak to make ourselves look "good" in the public eye. In fact, I'm not even saying we have to dismiss "conspiracy theories" if they are ratinally presented... (because then it's rational debate, and not just "conspiracy theories"). That's 100% contrary to BTM's vision. BUT, what I am saying is that speaking rationally and intellectually about topics (conspiracy theory or not) will inherently keep people drawn to the message we're trying to convey.
Let me turn this topic a little to see if what I am saying makes more sense. Let's take an agnostic who is dragged to a Baptist church by a friend, kicking and screaming. The church has an opportunity to share it's best light to that visitor in an effort to convince him that the message they teach is the right message, which message is he more apt to listen to?
Msg 1: "You did not accept Jesus Christ, so you will go to Hell." (a contrived conspiracy theory that is presented with no substantiation. The agnostic either blindly accepts it or walks away and dismisses it because there is no avenue for him to rationalize and debate the topic.)
Msg 2: "According to John 3:16, God gave his son Jesus to die on the cross for your sins, and your eternal salvation is guaranteed through acceptance of Christ as your savior." (still a conspiracy theory to some, but one that is at least presented with referenced substantiation that is now open for discussion and debate.)
Hopefully that makes a little more sense. If not, I guess we'd just have to agree to disagree on this... Thanks for the discussion though. I do enjoy it.
I wrote:
Delta, in this thread, we are not trying to substantiate claims of this or that conspiracy theory. We are discussing the validity of discussing conspiracy theories.
In response, totally ignoring or missing the point (I'm not sure which) of those two little sentences, you wrote:
Therein lies the problem then. If you don't substantiate the claims, then why even talk about it? What purpose does it serve? Presenting a claim as fact without substantiating it (or at least disclaiming it) is a huge turn-off, wouldn't you agree? Like I said, it's in how it is presented... a "kooky" conspiracy theory, or a "conspiracy theory that is debatable...
I would agree that IF we were debating the validity of a particular conspiracy theory it would be useful (even necessary) to substantiate claims, BUT WE'RE NOT. We are ONLY discussing the value of freely allowing the discussion of conspiracy theories.
I claim that some things are axiomatic. Do I need to substantiate that claim? You do realize that, in your posts, you have made several claims as matters of fact that are in reality just your unsubstantiated opinion...don't you?
God bless,
Nick
Quotable quote:
"Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment"~?
I just wanted to point out that because of the mention of "conspiracy theories" we have lost sight of what the post really was asking.
What does BTM do? Why does it exist?
We are all excited at the prospect of our liberating invasion of mainstream media, but what are our roles as members? Are we a part of this media revolution or are we just bystanders along for the ride?"
Those were the questions of the thread and it's original intent.
This is one of the reasons I prefer not to engage in conspiracy threads, they distract me from what I wanted to do in the first place. It doesn't matter if I have heard them all or not, I am related to each equally, there isn't anything I can do directly about them. I take a general "I wouldn't put it past them" approach to those topics but I have other work to do besides trying to chase every rabbit on the planet if you know what I mean.
I want to learn the best way to bring liberty to my community, without scaring them. I want them to love the idea for what it truly is. I am here to learn from all of you. Some of you will inspire me and some of you will remind me of what not to say, sometimes even when I'm the one who shouldn't have said that. ;) I have added two pieces of content before getting involved in this thread that were inspiring articles written by an online acquaintance. You Can Avoid Being Repelled; It's Your Choice I only added the authors own snippet as the description, but the article inspired me to hear about how he is working beside people he doesn't agree with on much other than liberty and how he overcomes what others would consider obstacles.
I have another article in my content by the same author where he discusses the wisdom of the crowd. I like his writings because they get me to look at things from another perspective than my own. I am fairly new to the forum life and a bit shocked at many of the exchanges I have seen between people. What is even more strange to me is that some people enjoy arguing.
Now I went right off there and blurted out what I hoped to use the site for. I would really like to hear the answers to those questions, even if it is only the hopes of others. As with everything in life, if we do not make these decisions, some one else will make them for us.
What does BTM do? Why does it exist?
We are all excited at the prospect of our liberating invasion of mainstream media, but what are our roles as members? Are we a part of this media revolution or are we just bystanders along for the ride?"
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
So, to sum it up- are you suggesting that, instead of just reposting articles from the web, we should input our own personal opinions before we post the content?
I could agree to that.. but I feel that sometimes the article can explain itself pretty clearly, without inserting our own input. Plus, if I'm not an expert at the subject, I would hate to force in my own opinion, because newcomers to the site may say "well, what does she know? She's not an expert- so why should I believe her?" Moreover, expert testimony is one of the main keys in delivering a good persuasive speech, while peer or personal testimony does not usually appeal to people, especially if they are egocentric.
Also, you said- "I'm not saying we have to window dress our discussion and only address main stream things at all. I'm not even saying we should only speak to make ourselves look "good" in the public eye. In fact, I'm not even saying we have to dismiss "conspiracy theories" if they are ratinally presented..."
The thing is, I feel that all of the articles I have seen on BTM have been rationally presented, so could you give me an example of one that has not?
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
Well, reposting articles without input can be construed as a a "lemming" state of mind. It doesn't show agreement or disagreement. It doesn't show where a thought was developed. An assumption can reasonably be made that the poster does agree with it, and in essence, means others are speaking and thinking for the poster.
Isn't that the kind of min-numbing brainwashed thought process BTM is trying to break people from?
At the very least, say "I agree/don't agree with this article."... generate discussion...
Exactly how does one become defined as an expert? They could go to school... (Cardiologists for example as experts in the heart). They could become a journeyman and learn via OJT (like an electrician).
But, there's also that more subtle confidence that can exist. I could know enough about computers to speak intelligently abut them to you -- and even substantiate those discussions with books, hands-on applications, trade publications, etc., and when you have a compuer failure and refuse to hold online with the manufacturer for 2 hours to speak to an off-shore resource, who are you going to call? There's a good chance you might call me and say "Hey, can you help me out?" Guess what, in your head, I am a computer expert, even if you don't say so. It is my substantiated confidence that convinced you I am an expert. You don't know if I am a chicken farmer or a network engineer. All you remember is that I talked to you about computers intelligently and I substantiated my claims.
The site is being a little funky right now, so I'll find the articles to which I am referring later...
Oh, I found one... (The site lasted long enugh)
Here's the original post (and I mean no disrespect to the original poster of this. It's just an example of conspiracy theory rhetoric that is unsubstantiated):
"I'm starting to see some ads for video games. I guess you guys don't realize this (or maybe you do) but the CIA has been developing video games to train our youth to kill in the upcoming wars. It's part of a secret psyops mind control plan to rule the world. Bottom line is...
these video game ads have to go or I'm LEAVING!!!!!"
Conspiracy Theory: CIA is making video games to train kids to become killers in future wars.
It is presented as fact as evidenced by the use of phrase "has been developing", not "might be developing". The claim purports to have specific knowledge of CIA efforts to perform this act within the direction of some sort of master plan. There may be truth to it, and there may not be, but there is no way to validate the information -- hence a "conspiracy theory".
There is absolutely nothing to substantiate this claim, and the sole purpose of the post is to incite fear in an effort to dictate policy. It's even followed up by an altimatum to cut and run from this site if there is no compliance.
Is this the kind of message we want visitors to see in members of this site? Do you think this might be a turn-off for the curious? Perhaps?
Personally I say I don't want to be represented by that kind of post or person, and would even go so far as to say "Don't let the door hitcha where the dog shoulda bitcha!" to that poster.
Edit: And no, I don't see that in your posts. They are always very informative and relevant. You provide input and invoke dicussion. That's enjoyable.
Thank you for your reply, and yes- I can definitely see where you are coming from. I, personally, agree with you- but how do you think that BTM could keep that from happening?
Also, sorry for seeming to take personal offense- but I have already had someone mention that my hemp articles are about "alternative magical energy sources that man is trying to keep from being developed". So, there's no telling what people believe are conspiracies or not. :)
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
I see your point, but sometimes I feel that copying an article from the source and referring back to that article can be powerful. The reader can form his/her own opinion on their own that way.
Anyway, if all you're trying to say is we should add our own input instead of just copy/paste... then it would have been alot easier to just say that instead. I think the way it was said could be easily miscommunicated over the computer, and now a molehill has become a mountain. :)
Anyway, I wil be more than happy to insert my own opinion in the articles I post from here on out.
So, does this mean my articles won't be conspiracies as long as I put my view on it? :)
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
I like to think of writing on a subject as offering my point of view instead of my opinion, it is a bit more open ended that way. When we say it is an opinion we somehow feel more attached to that and are less likely to be open to another point of view which may be just as plausible. I think it may be productive and inspiring if I tried to write my point of view and invited others to discuss theirs. I was not sure how to use the content section or how I wanted to use it, but maybe I will try this.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
The way I've understood it, blogs are for personal opinions and original content, and posting content can be articles you have stumbled upon that were difficult to find (being ignored by MSM). However, we don't have the blog option yet.
Here's the thing.... you say no "conspiracy theories"? What about the NAFTA Superhighway? To most Americans, this is a VERY big conspiracy theory. Yet, Ron Paul himself speaks of it. Many Americans believe a depression or martial law are consiracy theories.
So, which one of us is going to decide what's a REAL conspiracy theory, and what's not?
The fact is, none of us can. I think that it is up to the individual to decide if it's a "conspiracy" or not, and that is why the information is provided- so they can make the decision by themselves.
This is why, when you read an article, be open-minded. If you just can't accept it, then that is entirely your decision. Heck, you could even civily debate it if you wanted to.
But I ask that everyone remember this very important quote from Aristotle:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Let us not "hide" useful information, just so we can win-over people and show them that we aren't crazy. To me, information and knowledge should never be kept secret or illegal, no matter what it is.
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
Hi Miss Green. See my reply to Nick in identifying the differences between conspiracy theories and rationable debates.
Saying "Everyone knows NAFTA is a governmental conspiracy theory" does not substantiate the claim. When Ron Paul speaks about it, he digs into the meat and potatoes of why it is. Our visitors might never be introduced to that kind of info, so it's our responsibility to disseminate the facts to support the claim -- it's the only way to shake the label.
I, for one, am sick and tired of all the vain little weenies (lemmings) who are so afraid of being associated with those "conspiracy theory" nuts that they are willing to compromise their integrity and ignore the FACTS just to be more socially acceptable. The New World Order is no longer a conspiracy theory; it is a globally recognised political concept and an established fact.
While it is well known and well documented that the US government and other wealthy individuals and organisations have, repeatedly, conspired together to deceive the masses, you have not only concluded that rational people should believe that conspiracy theories are hogwash, but expect an entire community of individuals to collectively adopt that position in order to keep from being talked about in what you have deemed to be a negative light.
I believe that position is altogether antithetical to whole concept of Breaking the Matrix!
God bless,
Nick
Quotable quote:
"Sell your cleverness and purchase bewilderment"~?
Right on Nick! There is plenty of PROOF to support the conspiracy "theories" he is railing against. One of the best possible things that could happen on this site is to awaken others to the evil machinations occuring all around them. To refuse to allow the discussions of such topics would not only be anti constitutional, but is not in the best interest of American citizens. We're here to save ourselves & others from the evil plans unfolding around us.
Nick,
That's not it at all. There's a difference between "conspiracy theories" and topics (that are "conspiracy theory" by the nature of the topic) that can be rationally debated -- and it all boils down to how they are presented.
Look at it like this...
Let's say I am a visitor to this site, and I am presented with two articles that discuss media bias.
One article rationally discusses the bias, presents facts to substantiate the claims (for and against the claim), and presents an open free-flow of ideas to both sides of the argument in an effort to bring other information they might not have otherwise realized. (We'll use the media bias that appears to be against Ron Paul, and the Google Trends example to substantiate the claim -- which anybody can fact check for themselves).
The other article immediately lays claim to the notion that the media is 100% unabashedly opposed to one side and there is no evidence to purport otherwise (there is probable cause form the Ron Paul supporter standpoint to believe this). In the article, the author denounces anybody's opinion that directly contradicts their own.
As a visitor, I would be more attracted to the rational debate -- to receiving enlightenment through said debate. The other article is easily dismissed as propaganda garbage (in my head) that encourages no open thought whatsoever. Why would I read that article or even attempt to argue against it?
We're not here to force a set of values or opinions on someone else. They believe they are just as right as I do, or you do -- and no person appreciates having their ideals called to question. We are here to enlighten people, to open minds to a new way of thinking, to present information that boosts the messages of sound fiscal conservatism, individual liberties, and small government - and it is counterproductive to that message to bash or be dismissive to the curious.
"Conspiracy theories" present no substantiated factual claims to anything. They prey on the emotions of the target audience using trigger words and ideas - and though they get people thinking in alternate means, they do more harm than good in that it is a very superficial thought that can easily be swayed by the next "conspiracy theory".
Instead, what I/we are saying is let's be open and invite people in. Let's let them form their own beliefs and opinions through a responsible, sound, factual basis. Let's encourage their debate and discussion because in the end, they are either on board or they're leaving. By rationally debating on facts, there's a much better shot of changing minds and hearts.
Even in your reply, you say "While it is well known and well documented that the US government and other wealthy individuals and organisations have, repeatedly, conspired together to deceive the masses..." there is nothing substantial in that argument, and it is something that someone who believes they are right and you are wrong could very easily dismiss. Now if you said "Article such and such of document this or that, can be used to identify key points that support the notion that the government conspired in a coverup of whose it what", then you are substantiating your claim -- and tat is where the credibility of your voice overcomes the "conspiracy theory" aspect of a rant.
That, my friend, is where Break The Matrix comes into play.
This is a good post in my opnion - but I'll challenge the users of the site to not post consipiracy theories and actually start posting valuable content instead. It is my opinion that the conspiracy theory content belongs somewhere else.
Regards,
Ryan McAdams
Taking the right to know away is dangerous ground you are walking on.
One more thing, there are no theories, if you want just ask me for information on these Conspiracies. Or you could just start reading some, into these subjects yourself, otherwise there will be no way to understand that there is nothing hidden in these issues, its all out in the open, its in the National Archives and the Library of Congress. Your challenge me not to post something that you dont like is absurd at the least, and offends me. You support suppression of information and disagree with the 1st Amendment.
I challenge you to go read the Federalist Papers, and then you might get a sense of what the founding fathers might think of such a challenge if it where made to them. They would laugh in your face and then ridicule you..
What really pisses me off though is that this information effects the very heart of our country. This entire little camp here would not be able to exist if what this information means, and what will happen if it is not recognized and dealt with.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
John Adams, in Defense of the British Soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, December 4, 1770
"Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the "latent spark"... If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?"
John Adams, the Novanglus, 1775
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers."
John Adams, Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law, 1765
I never suggested that you take away the "right to know" and any assertion that I did is a flat out lie.
What I said was - I challenge everyone to post useful content and the immediate reaction that I was calling you out specifically is quite pompous.
Frankly rea1001 - you don't matter to me... you annoy me and you flood this site with too much garbage for anyone to read and care about and that's how I feel. I didn't say anything about you.
Let me try again... I challenge the users of this site to post valuable content and make this site worth visiting.
Hopefully we don't have any more individuals who are arrogant and believe I'm calling them out when in reality I am challenging everyone on this site to make this place better.
My idea of "good content" is not the same as everyone elses and I understand that - thus I don't care for rea1001's posts but that does not make them less valuable that say my posts to anyone but me.
Regards,
Ryan McAdams
This is a good post in my opnion - but I'll challenge the users of the site to not post consipiracy theories and actually start posting valuable content instead. It is my opinion that the conspiracy theory content belongs somewhere else.
Uhh-huh, whatever you say shill.
Uhh-huh, whatever you say shill.
Im still waiting for you to engage me, and prove why these so called theories shouldnt be on here. These Conspiracies are staying right where they are at. I have an idea, lets debate them????
I agree 100% about conspiracy theories belonging elsewhere. In the case of anti-RP conspiracies, it really shows visitors that we support a cast of members who sit around and complain instead of showing active involvement in reversing trends.
When I open up and see unoriginal (for lack of a better word) reposts of news stories out there without any addiitional insight, it is frustrating... but maybe I just don't understand what our roles (as members) ought to be -- hence my original comments about defining goals.
Rick/Trevor, can we expect direction, or is this an avenue where we should work together to define our goals and run with it? It's your site, so I'll follow your lead! Just point me in the right direction.
Second this motion.
Hey is me neo NeoDaCon vote for the top tear!
i second this second motion
i agree with this guy too breakin he maytricks is a site for kooks who dont have nay fax about nuttin and the content is horrible and nobody will read this site because its talking about paulie things
you shouldnt talk about ron paul on this site you should talk good about mccain and the other top tear candidates and stop bein bias
paulies are not cretive or smart thats why you should join me and donate to the top tier
your best friend
NeoDaCon
rmemebr the alomo