Congratulations: You've finally annoyed me

An open letter to Webster Tarpley and gang, including the Rick Seigel club,Screw Loose Change, and all of the wee front ops attacking the Kennebunkport Hoax investigators:

Congratulations--you have finally annoyed Jenny--but not for the reasons you think.

After the KW hoax was exposed you lot spent weeks trying--and failing--to dig up anything noteworthy about us--"us" being me, cosmos, Arabesque, Joan Jones, and others. Failing that, you started to post wild guesses about who we might be based on a variety of things, including the 9/11 groups operating in our local areas--at least where our local areas are known. But I didn't realize how low you'd go until Nico directed me to this yahoo group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/

Apparently, a group of 911 activists who have no connection to the hoax investigation, are, nonetheless, being blamed for exposing the hoax.

So let me get this straight, slags: because you can't find us, you start targeting innocent civilians on the ground who had no involvement with exposing the hoax? Isn't that a super villain ploy--attack civilians to force the heroes out? Or is this just your encore, after "killtwoofers"?

I suppose it worked then, you evil bitches. Was that why you set up poor Noah Teft to pass on Nico's shite to me? As if that lad hasn't had enough to deal with lately... In the interests of avoiding more casualties, let me straighten the lot of you out:

The Hoax Busters are not part of any 9/11 group in any one area. And while we're at it, to clear up Noah's confusion, I am not a part of any group in my area. My opinion of the groups, such as they are, in my area vary from low to subterranean:

One group of people so compromised with nutters you'd have trouble seeing the activists for the shills. Another group is made of well meaning people who couldn't organize an offensive out of a paper bag. And then there are people like me, muddling along on our own, scattered here and there. Clear enough, to all the "butter brains"?

The only group I'm part of is:



And as melodramatic as that answer might look, it's closer to the sodding truth than the shite you've all been peddling for the last two months. There is a team. It does have international reach. But it's not connected to a bunch of bumbling amateurs on the ground.

You want to come after the Hoax Busters? Fine--if you haven't noticed we've been giving you a kicking. So bring it on, bitches.

But leave the civilians out of it, cowards.

Webster Tarpley: Your services will no longer be required in the 9/11 Truth Movement

From: the 9/11 Truth Movement,
an unincorporated international association

To: Webster Griffin Tarpley,
author and a self-stylized leader of 9/11 Truth

Subject: Your services as a "leader" will no longer be required in the 9/11 Truth Movement

Mr. Tarpley:

It is with regret that we inform you that your services as a "leader" of 9/11 Truth will no longer be required from this point forth.

As with so many organizations, your position has been made redundant. In reviewing our loose association, it has become clear that our need for leaders, self stylized or otherwise, was overstated. The fact is, every individual 9/11 activist is their own leader, and thoroughly capable of doing their own research, organization, fund raising, lectures, as so forth without direction from solitary bombastic personalities. In fact, "cults of personality" have done our loose organization more harm than good, preventing people from recognizing and learning the organization skills that would make our association more effective. Your engaging and entertaining style will be missed by some, but it has rather out lived it's usefulness.

Then there is a matter of your work performance. In the past you have been a valued asset. But this year we had seen signs of degeneration in the quality of your work. We have been patient and understanding; after all we all go through bad patches. But, at the end of August, with your gross mismanagement of the Kennebunkport Warning fiasco, it became clear your judgment on the job was not what it was.

And you, sir, aggravated matters by not only refusing to take responsibility for your actions and take steps to mitigate their consequences, but, instead, joined in a multi part campaign to hunt down, discredit and attack those justifiably demanding you to take responsibility for you actions.

There is no use denying you have been part of, and intended to benefit from, this attack on 9/11 activists; these outrageous, and in some case outright illegal, antics have been thoroughly documented here:

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/webster-tarpley-arabesque-cosmos-jenny.html

We also have it on authority that the documented time line of these events is, along with other evidence, such that it leave no doubt in our minds, or that of any solicitor, that you. sir, have conspired with others to undermine the civil rights and threaten activists who have challenged you. These acts are odious and repulsive to 9/11 Truth, the Peace Movement, and any other activism who's goal is true justice and democracy.

These activities were sufficient by themselves to make your position in our association redundant. But it was your latest "stunt" posted on Rense that made our decision to remove you from the 9/11 Truth movement final:

Internet Cointelpro Alert

http://www.rense.com/general78/counter.htm

We will excerpt portions to show how far your position has diverged from, and in many cases, is counter to, the goals of 911 Truth:

Quote:

It has come to our attention that certain scurrilous, obscene, abusive, harassing, and threatening emails, blog postings, and videos are being fabricated, circulated, sent, and posted on the internet by anonymous provocateurs who are evidently working for the pro-Cheney factions of the US intelligence community.

This is disingenuous, sir, as is is obvious that considering the content and timeline of these blogs and videos, they were made to attack those who you attacked as well. Had you had a serious concern about this malicious media campaign you would have spoken out against it sooner, regardless of whom was the target.

Quote:

An effort is being made in some quarters to falsely attribute these faked and counterfeit postings, emails, and videos to Webster G. Tarpley, Bruce Marshall, Captain Eric May, and to other persons sympathetic to the Philadelphia Platform and/or the Kennebunkport Warning. Any such attempted attribution is a lie.

Perhaps if you had spoken out against these media in a timely manner, while they were attacking 9/11 activists you disagreed with, this statement would have weight. As it is, the bulk of the documented evidence strongly supports what Mr. Haupt would call a "tandem", thus making your statement another attempt to avoid responsibilities for your actions and support of other peoples unethical actions.

Quote:

ActIndependent.org is in the process of tracking down and analyzing a global pattern of coordinated cointelpro deployments in Australia, Canada, Austria, and Germany, in addition to the United States. Actindependent.org calls on all anti-war, impeachment, anti-globalization, 9/11 truth, civil liberties, honest vote count, labor, civil rights, ethnic minority, and other groups and persons of good will everywhere to help identify, denounce, expose, and isolate the anonymous provocateurs who are behind this campaign of falsification and harassment.

This, sir, is another example of your irresponsible judgment. Considering you used the end of your Cooper Union hall speech to attack 9/11 activists as Cointelpro with no evidence worthy of a court of law, this wild call for various groups to "track down" and "isolate" individuals, is likely to result in irresponsible and dangerous witch hunts. Neither you, nor Actindependent.org have the faintest understanding of how Cointelpro worked if you believe tracking down individuals you don't is going to stop the actions of a present day reincarnation of the organization. This, sir, is a thinly veiled call to attack persons you and those who support you disagree with. We can no longer be responsible for the out come of these ill conceived words.

Quote:

Since the Kennebunkport Warning of August 26, we have seen the rogue nuclear B-52 incident of August 29-30, followed this past week by Bush's Hitlerian threat of "world war three" in response to Putin's warning to the US not to attack Iran. Every passing day now brings new incidents which take the world closer to the brink of a colossal tragedy which we can still mobilize to prevent. Nobody should be disoriented for one minute by these transparent internet provocations and dirty tricks.

To be blunt sir, it is your analysis that is transparently manipulating any new alarming event that might fit into your preconceived "Warning" to justify it after the fact. Thus your accusation of "dirty tricks" reeks of projection and hypocrisy, sir.

Quote:

Groups and persons of good will are invited to endorse and publicize the Kennebunkport Warning with its key proviso that any terrorist incident (new 9/11 and/or new Gulf of Tonkin incident) occurring anywhere in the world involving weapons of mass destruction in the weeks and months ahead must be considered the responsibility of the Cheney faction and its allies.

We would remind you. sir, that the Kennebunkport Warning was quite clear it warned of an "imminent" attack, supported by "massive evidence". Not an attack "weeks and months" down the road, and certainly not with retroactive evidence. This shows you must have known the dishonestly of how the warning was presented, even apart from the dishonesty of how the alleged signatories were treated.

You may object, "But I didn't write the Internet Cointelpro Allert! Actindependent.org did!"

Let's not be coy, sir. A perusal of the site:

http://actindependent.org/

..shows an abundance of material supporting a position that you have spearhead and given your full endorsement. If it is indeed true you are not the actual author of this alert, then it is true you except to benefit from it. It would be a show of character to take a sand against this irresponsible document. Unfortunately such a demonstration will come too late to rescind our decision.

You have not been without controversy in your association with us. We have been understanding, perhaps to the point of foolishness, with your tolerance and endorsement of Nico Haupt, James Fetzer, Captain Eric May, Lyndon LaRouche, Bruce Marshall, Craig Hill, Leland Lehman, Jeff Rense and all manner of characters we should have been more proactive about confronting you in the past about. That was our responsibility and our mistake. But it is this last document, this Internet Cointelpro Alert, that is "the last straw":

From the tone and contents of the document it is clear you have no intention of taking responsibility for the damage you have caused 911 Truth.

It is also clear you have no intention of doing anything in your power to mitigate or fix the damage you have caused.

And further, it is clear you have every intention of continuing to cause damage to 9/11 Truth, and it's allies in the Peace movement, in the pursuit of whatever agenda you are pursuing.

And so it is with regret we terminate your position as "leader" and "spokesperson" in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Please refrain from presenting yourself as either in future.

We wish you well in all future endeavors unrelated to 9/11 Truth.

Signed

The 9/11 Truth Movement,
an unincorporated international association, with individual signatories below:

(To sign Tarpley's "pink slip", go to this thread at Truthaction.org:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2501
and post a request to have your name added. This is primarily a symbolic gesture, to show how many 9/11 activists want nothing more to do with him after his irresponsible behavior. Also feel free to link to Tapley's "pink slip", here or at Truthaction.org, anytime someone insists Tarpley speaks for 9/11 Truth. He bloody well does not.
____________________________________________________________________

Jenny Sparks; imgstacke; ArtV; Pollyanna; g; Hocus Locus; YT;


(Edit: I'll be adding names as they're posted to the thread--to be clear you want to be added, just write something like "add me". Conversely, if I discover a trouble maker, their name will go. )
(2ndEdit: and if you find you don't want your name below--for whatever reason--just tell me and I'll remove it , unlike some people... )

Activism is Counter Intelligence

More to the point, under a government hostile to civil liberties, the needs of social justice activism parallel the needs of governments under attack by hostile foreign powers. As such, activism would benefit greatly by considering the very tools used by intelligence communities in Counter Intelligence, or CI.

James Olson, the author of the CIA article "The Ten Commandments of Counterintelligence",

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v45i5a08p.htm

strikes me as typical of the average cog in the Company machine--bright enough to be useful, even brilliant within his narrow branch, but not mentally flexible enough to see how the very system he's working for causes the problems he's tasked with solving:

Quote:

CI that is passive and defensive will fail. We cannot hunker down in a defensive mode and wait for things to happen. I believe we are spending far too much money on fences, safes, alarms, and other purely defensive measures to protect our secrets. That is not how we have been hurt in recent years. Spies have hurt us. Our CI mindset should be relentlessly offensive. We need to go after our CI adversaries. The United States, as the world’s only remaining superpower, will be the constant target of jealousies, resentments, rivalries, and challenges to its economic well-being, security, and leadership in the world. This inevitably means that the United States will be the target of large-scale foreign espionage.

For an old hand, he sounds appallingly naive about how "jealousies" and "resentments" got there in the first place. But there are people who can function with a high degree of effectiveness without questioning the premise of their world views. And, in spite of Olson's Hubble sized blind spots, his Ten Commandments of Counter Intelligence are brilliantly conceived guidelines for anyone under a well funded attack campaign.

They also can help us see who does what best in a movement. Not everyone is built for street actions. And not everyone is built for unending analysis. Knowing what one does best, or even what one prefers by temperament will go along way to heading off time wasting conflicts about approaches where both need to be done by separate groups of people. And it might give those in 9/11 Truth an idea of what bases are covered, what bases need help, and what isn't even on the radar.

A final note: as social justice activists, most of us in the Truth Movement have a self image of direct, honest, upright individuals, who wear our hearts on our sleeves because "We need to speak truth to Power!" And that is frankly fantastic. But, as you will see, there may be some tasks in activism that need to be done that are actually hampered by projecting that self image--at least to the exclusion of cunning.

Ten Counter Intelligence tools for 9/11 Activism

1: Be Proactive - Olson says "offensive" but with all the trolling we get in 911Truth, I wanted to avoid any misunderstanding.

Quote:

CI that is passive and defensive will fail. We cannot hunker down in a defensive mode and wait for things to happen. I believe we are spending far too much money on fences, safes, alarms, and other purely defensive measures to protect our secrets. That is not how we have been hurt in recent years. Spies have hurt us. Our CI mindset should be relentlessly offensive. We need to go after our CI adversaries.

Not everyone is up for proactive maneuvers. But they are a necessity--If you do not take the field-- you will yield it to the opposition. I encourage people to read Olson's further comments and use their creativity to find solutions.

2: Respect what CI does--No one likes bearers of bad tidings, even if they are correct:

Quote:

The truth is that CI officers are not popular. They are not always welcome when they walk in. They usually bring bad news. They are easy marks to criticize when things go wrong. Their successes are their failures. If they catch a spy, they are roasted for having taken so long. If they are not catching anyone, why not? What have they done with all that money they spent on CI? It is no-win.

Definitely NOT the James Bond fantasy. But the fact is this work needs to be done. If you find the whole matter wearing, then leave it to those who willing to do it. The fact is you're activism will be harder by far--perhaps even impossible-- if CI type work is NOT done.

3: Own the Street--I can see loads of folks down with this. But this means more than just street actions--it means physically having people "in the field", so to speak, gathering information, overtly or covertly:

Quote:

This is so fundamental to CI, but it is probably the least followed of the commandments. Any CI program worthy of the name has to be able to engage the opposition on the street, the field of play for espionage. And when we do go to the street, we have to be the best service there. If we are beaten on the street, it is worse than not having been there at all.

I'll refer you to Olsen for more details--and imaginative ingenuity for applications.

4:Know your History-Olson says:

Quote:

I am very discouraged when I talk to young CI officers today to find how little they know about the history of American CI. CI is a difficult and dangerous discipline. Many good, well-meaning CI people have gone wrong and made horrendous mistakes. Their failures in most cases are well documented, but the lessons are lost if our officers do not read the CI literature.

But what does he expect with a Commander in Chief allergic to reading and budgets cuts reducing personnel? Well, there loss can be our gain. One thing 9/11Activsts are, are compulsive readers. And remember it's not just the history behind 9/11 and false flag events, but the history of all social activist groups, what worked, what didn't, and why.

5: Do not Ignore Analysis--This one I'd say 9/11 Truth does well enough. We certainly don't seem to have this problem Olson refers to:

Quote:

Analysis has too often been the stepchild of CI. Throughout the CI community, we have fairly consistently understaffed it. We have sometimes tried to make it up as we go along. We have tried to do it on the cheap.

If anything we might be a little analysis heavy. It does take less resources to mull over evidence, opinions, and events, than doing many of the other things. There is a reason CI is primarily done by governments with an ample budget.

Still, the quality of our analysis might need to be improved. Where do you recognize yourself in this quote?:

Quote:

Generally speaking, operators make bad analysts. We are different kinds of people. Operators are actors, doers, movers and shakers; we are quick, maybe a little impulsive, maybe a little “cowboy.” Our best times are away from our desks. We love the street. Research and analysis is really not our thing—and when we have tried to do it, we have not been good at it. True analysts are different. They love it. They are more cerebral, patient, and sedentary. They find things we could not. They write better.

Operator? Analyst? A little of both but with a preference for one or the other? An honest answer to that maybe many people's key to defusing much online friction.

Fact is both are necessary. Here's is where the born analyst will bounce back and forth over why. I lean to being an operator, so excuse me if I just go for the conclusion:

If what you LOVE to to is analyze, and you repeatedly stick yourself with people who are operator types, you will feel surrounded by reckless trigger happy idiots. My advice is to form a group of fellow analysts--possible including operators who have an analyst streak--to act as support, as well as a resource.

If what you LOVE to do is see things get done, be in the middle of the action, and you repeatedly stick yourself with analysts, you will always feel thwarted by yakking idiots who talk forever in circles while nothing ever gets done, missing every window of opportunity that comes by. What you can do is form a real time response group, that is again a support for your preference, as well as a resource.

Being honest about what you do or like is important. The analyst who self-identifies as an operator but can't keep their head under fire is a liability. As is the operator who identifies as an analyst, but cannot slow down to make a plan before acting.

If you honestly can do both well, you'll be able to tell which you are doing at any one time. But you're still likely to have a personal preference.

DO NOT force analysts into real time ops if they have no interest. DO NOT force operators to do analysis if they have no interest.

6: Use Our Alliances --Olson says "don't be parochial", but that sounds like my school days...

Quote:

More harm probably has been done to US CI over the years by interagency sniping and obstruction than by our enemies. I remember when the CIA and the FBI did not even talk to each other—and both had disdain for the military services. It is no wonder that CI was a shambles and that some incredibly damaging spies went uncovered for so long.

This is laughably bad--and then I think of how some 9/11 activists talk about the "Sheeple"--the people we're trying to reach--hello?. Or disparaging the Peace Movement. NOT actively building and using our alliances is just as laughably stupid as the CIA not talking with the FBI.

7: Train Your People-- Some aren't going to like to hear this, but social change was not accomplished by "I have a Dream" speeches, mobbing the streets or sitting in the front of the bus. Those were the high points or catalysts YEARS in the making, with thousands of manhours(and womanhours ) preparing the way ahead. And those people learned how to do what they did, either through experience or they were taught and given guidance. None of this happened magically JUST because people decided it was wrong to be mean to people of African-decent. Powerful interests--who are very well trained, BTW--needed to be "persuaded".

Whatever you want to do, learn to be the best you can at it.

8: Do not let yourself be ignored--This seems to have a timely significance:

Quote:

By the same token, defense and intelligence contractors and bureaucrats running sensitive US Government programs have too often tended to minimize CI threats and to resist professional CI intervention. CI officers, in their view, stir up problems and overreact to them. Their “successes” in preventing CI problems are invisible and impossible to measure, but their whistle blowing when problems are uncovered generate tremendous heat. It is not surprising that they are often viewed as a net nuisance. When necessary, a CI service has to impose itself on the organizations and groups it is assigned to protect. A CI professional who is locked out or invited in only when it is convenient to the host cannot do his job. My advice to my CI colleagues has always been this: “If you are blocked by some senior, obtuse, anti-CI officer, go around him or through him by going to higher management. And document all instances of denied access, lack of cooperation, or other obstruction to carrying out your CI mission. If not, when something goes wrong, as it likely will in that kind of situation, you in CI will take the blame.”

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

9: "Do not stay too long"--I couldn't come up with anything better and he has a point:

Quote:

CI is a hazardous profession. There should be warning signs on the walls: “A steady diet of CI can be dangerous to your health.” I do not believe anyone should make an entire, uninterrupted career of CI. We all who work in CI have seen it: the old CI hand who has gotten a bit spooky. It is hard to immerse oneself daily in the arcane and twisted world of CI without falling prey eventually to creeping paranoia, distortion, warping, and overzealousness in one’s thinking. It is precisely these traits that led to some of the worst CI disasters in our history. Angleton and his coterie sadly succumbed, with devastating results. Others in the CIA and elsewhere have as well. The danger is always there.

This is not just true with hyper skooky shite. I've lost count of the people I've met who were active in the 60's or 70's but burned out after 10 years. They have the same politics but do nothing today.

Personally I suspect TPTB take advantage of this fact--people have limited resources. It is unreasonable to pour your energy into something that continues to make no progress year after year. And they are betting on delaying people indefinitely until most of us burn out.

This is why I have no sodding patience with Mini-Nukes, TV fakery, Captain May, Tarpley or any other wanker or organization who's sole purpose or effect WILL BE to slow down 9/11 Activism. None of us are getting any younger. We WILL all burn out eventually. The only way forward is to take out the proven disinfo trash and not look back.

Be aware of this reality--anyone can burn out. Pacing ourselves, and removing distractions, will lessen that possibility.

10: Never give up--this might sound counter indicative, considering #9, but Olson means in particular, any investigation. Even if it is passed on, there will be a unbroken body of work that can be used by future investigators. Archive your findings somewhere, on a private message board, a restricted Google group, etc

_______________________________________________________________________

Course, as 9/11 activists, our application of the above tools will be wildly different from what Olson conceived. We are not a centralized organization and there is no bureaucracy. And we'll need to go our of our way to liaise with independent 9/11 groups working the CI angle. But our effectiveness has the potential to become exponential once we do.

This is of course in addition to all the excellent work already being done. One idea is to make non-public viewable on-line networking groups, focusing on whatever aspect of activism has your interest. Again this is in addition to what you do that is in the public domain. Invite only people you know or can be vouched for. Review these tools, Olson's comments and see what imagination produces.

I will make a note to all NSA gits reading:

Jenny is not advocating violence in any way, shape, or form.

The other side is using these CI tools as we speak. It is the secret of their "success". It's time to make these "Devil's tools" work for, instead of, against us.


A big thanks to Dicktater for the CIA link!

When Prophecy Fails

First there was "Noble Resolve". Then came the "Kennebunkport Warning". Now we're living through the "End Times"--ahem, I mean "TOPOFF 4"---notice a pattern?

There seem to be interests who want to enable and encourage an "End Times" meme in 9/11 Activism. Captain May's Portland Nuclear Inquest--and, to a lesser extent, Ginny Ross' OTA-- has some of the hallmarks of cult manipulation:

Selected from How Cults Work http://www.howcultswork.com/

-cult leaders will tell you can only be "saved" (or can only be successful) in their organization alone.
-Character Assassination
-In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true.
-End of world pressure.
-Secret knowledge.

I'm not saying the "Nukes are falling!" warnings are the product of a cult--there are many more factors before you can earn that label. But I am saying that the Nuke hysteria contains enough highlights of cultish behavior, that, at the least, we have a highly disfunctional manipulative dynamic.

All our sources are confidential--trust us anyway

The leaders, or those close to leadership, in warning all and sundry about a new false flag, are the only ones who determine what evidence is real:

Captain May, when confronted about the Kennebunkport Hoax, wants you to take it on his (and Tarpley and Barrett) say so that it is real:

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/543

Somewhere in this exchange in the next link, the OTA is supposed to have gotten another "anonymous tip"( it's confusing because Patty is posting it and you assume she's the one who found it, but then Ginny pipes up in a responding post calling this a, anonymous tip to the OTA-- but there's no indication that that post was sent to the OTA. Something happening off list there)

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/1305

Russ Halberg's allusions to his contacts in organized crime during Noble Resolve:
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/57

An excessive reliance on "confidential" sources, that no one can refute, have the effect of "infallible' leadership.

Our leader is always right--don't prove otherwise

Captain May's intolerance of any dissenting view:

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/208
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/496
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/497
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/1181

And, indeed, his inability or unwillingness to engage anyone in a conversation--it's his way, or the highway--even if you agree with him:

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/1183

To which your correct response is, "Sieg Heil !"

Character Assasination

We're all familier with Captain May's helping Tarpley smear us:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/webster-tarpley-arabesque-cosmos-jenny.html

But he can initiate his own smear campaign against groups and former members he doesn't like. Observe:

Picking fights with groups who disagree with his by claiming a public post on the other group was a personal "note"(if this was really a personal email, he could have posted the format proving this--note Jim was the first to be banned for no good reason--seems he's still a bit upset):
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/1102

Sending unwanted private emails to leaders of other groups:
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/1154

Spending way to many posts making an issue of Columbia Jim, who as far as I can tell, never contacted them personally, but they're thinking of telling the Feds...it would be B-movie bad, if it wasn't for the fact respected people are taking May seriously.

We should be clear what we mean by "character assasination". It's not exposing provable bad behavior. It is attacking someone's character, without evidence of bad behavior to justify the attack.

Anything and anyone that contradicts our position is cointelpro.

See the link to Arabesques blog above. They seem to do this especially when then asked hard questions they don't want to answer.

This is an extention of the Character Assasionation, but it's so blunt, unweildy and trite, it's surprising they use it at all. The only reason I can see that it works is the social support, which we will get to later.

"End of the World" pressure

So how many more "warnings" will we get of an "imminent false flag" or a "drill that will go live" after TOPOFF is over--after NOTHING has gone live?

What was that? None? You think they'll stop?

Time to read the following from "When Prophecy Fails":
http://www.whenprophecyfails.org/

Quote:

The increase of proselyting following unequivocal disconfirmation of a belief occurs when the following five conditions are met. If any one of the conditions is not met then it is believed (see chapter VIII of When Prophecy Fails) that the increase will not occur. These conditions are: 1. A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he behaves. 2. The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief. 3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief. 4. Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. The first two of these conditions specify the circumstances that will make the belief resistant to change. The third and fourth conditions together, on the other hand, point to factors that would exert powerful pressure on a believer to discard his belief. It is, of course, possible that an individual, even though deeply convinced of a belief, may discard it in the face of unequivocal disconfirmation. We must therefore, state a fifth condition specifying the circumstances under which the belief will be discarded and those under which it will be maintained with new fervor. 5. The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.

Personally, I don't agree that all the examples this site shows under "politics" accurately expresses these principles. But they do explain why, when the end of the world fails to happen five times in a row, there are people who still cling to the Jehovah's Witness, for example.

So, when the Drill fails to go live--assuming Captain May's crowd has all five conditions in operation, we can just expect more of the same from that lot--because there will always be another drill. At least until there is a political will to stop them because of the waste of tax they are.

This is a potential unending loop of cultish weirdness that is not helping 9/11 Truth.

But we can help break the cycle. Apparently it is fifth step that can be decisive--to repeat:

Quote:

It is, of course, possible that an individual, even though deeply convinced of a belief, may discard it in the face of unequivocal disconfirmation. We must therefore, state a fifth condition specifying the circumstances under which the belief will be discarded and those under which it will be maintained with new fervor.-- 5. The individual believer must have social support.

I don't want to sound like a cold hearted bastard about this, but it's time to yank the social support for this cultish meme as much as can be done outside the group. There are people genuinely afraid and concerned--in other words they aren't the shills running the show. When they come by with their vague, badly sourced evidence, of a "drill that could go live", evidence that is either already known, redundant or unremarkable, they need to be firmly and gently refuted.

And perhaps the question should be raised "How exactly is this different from the last three times there was "massive evidence" of an "imminent" false flag?"

One of the goals of 9/11 activism is to prevent false flags--and the wars of profit they start --by educating the public about this nasty secret tool the powerful have been using against them for centuries. The point is to change politics and polices, and end wars forever. The point is not to whip people up into energy wasting and easily marginalized hysteria.

And when prophecy fails, the prophet should, too.
_________________
___________________________________________________