Saturday, December 29, 2007

F.A.C.T. net appreciates our Tarpley education efforts

from Jenny's diary~

F.A.C.T.net is a resource for cult abuse survivors. I can't say I agree with laws to "outlaw Scientology" per se. I think the law should focus on the abusive behaviors regardless of what the organization calls themselves. That said, this is generally smashing resource exposing dysfunctional spiritual and religious manipulation:

HOW TO DETERMINE IF A GROUP IS A DESTRUCTIVE CULT
Cómo determinar si un grupo es un culto destructivo

Q) Anybody can unfairly attack a group they disagree with by calling it a cult or saying they are using coercive mind control. How does FACTNet prevent this type of problem and determine fairly whether or not a group is a cult?

A) FACTNet uses specific criteria to determine if a mind control system has been used, and does not suggest organizations are destructive or dangerous cults without careful research and determination that the evidence fits definite criteria. These criteria are threefold.


The first set of criteria comes from the group' use of a specific set of mind control tactics. Please see "A technical overview of mind control tactics" at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm for details or see http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html for a shorter version. These two documents are derived from the work of Dr. Margaret Singer professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley the acknowledged leading authority in the world on mind control and cults.

The second set of criteria has to do with defining other common elements of mind control systems, as defined by Robert Jay Lifton's eight point model of thought reform. Please see "Robert Jay Lifton's Eight Point Model of Thought Reform" also at http://www.factnet.org/rancho1.htm. If most points in this model are being used in a cultic organization, it is most likely a dangerous and destructive cult.

The third set of criteria have to do with defining common elements of destructive and dangerous cults. The following section will help clarify what some of those specific elements and criteria are.

Common Properties of Potentially Destructive and Dangerous Cults

The cult is authoritarian in its power structure. The leader is regarded as the supreme authority. He or she may delegate certain power to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes and roles. There is no appeal outside of his or her system to greater systems of justice. For example, if a school teacher
feels unjustly treated by a principal, appeals can be made. In a cult, the leader claims to have the only and final ruling on all matters.

The cult's leaders tend to be charismatic, determined, and
domineering.
They persuade followers to drop their families, jobs, careers, and friends to follow them. They (not the individual) then take over control of their followers' possessions, money, lives.

The cult's leaders are self-appointed, messianic persons who claim to have a special mission in life. For example, the flying saucer cult leaders claim that people from outer space have commissioned them to lead people to special places to await a space ship.

The cult's leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves. Priests, rabbis, ministers, democratic leaders, and leaders of genuinely altruistic movements keep the veneration of adherents focused on God, abstract principles, and group purposes. Cult leaders, in contrast, keep the focus of love, devotion, and allegiance on themselves.

The cult tends to be totalitarian in its control of the behavior of its members. Cults are likely to dictate in great detail what members wear, eat, when and where they work, sleep, and bathe-as well as what to believe, think, and say.

The cult tends to have a double set of ethics. Members are urged to be open and honest within the group, and confess all to the leaders. On the other hand, they are encouraged to deceive and manipulate outsiders or nonmembers. Established religions teach members to be honest and truthful to all, and to abide by one set of ethics.

The cult has basically only two purposes, recruiting new members and fund-raising. Established religions and altruistic movements may also recruit and raise funds. However, their sole purpose is not to grow larger; such groups have the goals to better the lives of their members
and mankind in general. The cults may claim to make social
contributions, but in actuality these remain mere claims, or gestures. Their focus is always dominated by recruiting new members and fund-raising.

The cult appears to be innovative and exclusive. The leader claims to be breaking with tradition, offering something novel, and instituting the only viable system for change that will solve life's problems or the world's ills. While claiming this, the cult then surreptitiously uses systems of psychological coercion on its members to inhibit their
ability to examine the actual validity of the claims of the leader and the cult.

And what does this have to do with 9/11? Well, it doesn't directly--but it is thanks to the efforts of those of us working together in the US and the UK to educate people about Tarpley, they reference us in their discussions on Larouche here. From what I hear, that one post keeps bringing 9/11 Truth traffic.

It's nice to be appreciated, it is.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Conspiracy Smasher tries to smash Christmas Truce

Mind, at least he showed up unlike the rest of the 9/11 Wallflowers.

Cheers to Jon and Gareth for popping in. But Conspiracy Smasher earned himself a lorry load of coal in his stocking, he did--he made a much worse hash of it than "mania" did in the Screw Loose Christmas Truce comments. To be fair--just for the exercise of it--what I saw as bait might just be a habit, but read for yourself:

He started out okay--I say okay because it had the feel of someone working up to pushing the rules:

Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

"Are there any Hanuka "carols"? That is, holiday songs? Or do Jews think that's a tacky commercialization thing?"

You do know that Jews wrote a lot of the good Christmas carols...don't you?

December 25, 2007 2:35 PM

Ignoring the slightly aggressive tone, I graciously engaged:

Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

"You do know that Jews wrote a lot of the good Christmas carols...don't you?"

Wouldn't be surprised--but it's not like its common knowledge who wrote what, now is it? Put down the Google search engine--I mean off the top of your head, like.(now watch--he turns out to be a Bible study major)

What I meant was songs Jews sing for their own holidays this time of year. Know any?

Oh, and Happy Christmas!

December 25, 2007 2:49 PM

Whilst the "dwarf turkey" was roasting CS posted another comment that I had to reject:


Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

"it's not like its common knowledge who wrote what, now is it?"

I guess not for some people. Those of us who are rationalist all seem to know...you have heard of a chap named Irving Berlin haven't you?

December 25, 2007 4:44 PM

This comment is mostly fine--except for the obvious bait of "rationalist". Ahem. One would think someone who considers themselves a "rationalist" would NOT make a provocative interjection during a truce, and certainly NOT in a snarky unfriendly way. A rationalist would have read the rules and followed them or not tried to comment in the first place. Needless to say his comment was rejected. Now perhaps the "rationalist" reference was a habit and he didn't see it as bait--but a "rationalist", during a truce, should know better.

Still, once more into the breach and all that I go:

Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Oh dear. Conspiracy Smasher gets a bit of coal in his stocking. Just a bit--let's review the rules, shall we?

No shots, no "fishing", no baiting.

Breaking these rules, or the spirit of the rules, will get you coal in your stocking--that is, I don't post your comment.


Feel free to try again.

Unfortunately this moderation is all or none--otherwise I would have just edited out the "bait". ;-)

December 25, 2007 4:56 PM


I even allow it was a small infraction and invite CS to try again. Unfortunately he responds with even less grace:

Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

No worries, it's your sandbox - most conspiradroids hate hearing dissenting views - I don't hold it against you. If you want to talk to the grown-ups, you know where to come...

December 25, 2007 5:39 PM


Apparently this "rationalist" believes being a "grown-up" involves not being able to follow rules or instruction, and outright lying about why he's being disciplined. Still, I am full of Christmas cheer--perhaps he has Asbergers:

Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Now he's on about "dissenting views".

There was nothing dissenting about his second comment--it just violated the terms of the truce by having "bait" in it. Really, all he needed to do was repost his comment--sans bait.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point: just repost without bait.

Happy Christmas again, Conspiracy Smasher! But I have to give a you this big lump of coal. You're welcome to try again...

Meanwhile dinner is a smashing success--but no one bought my "dwarf turkey". But everyone is saying what a big chicken it is...

December 25, 2007 6:05 PM


He never could figure out how converse civilly which I expect is the reason he never came back. Guess it's true what they say--if you can't say something nice, don't bother to say anything at all.

And with that in mind, I thank Pat and James and the Screw Loose crew for exercising great restraint in the spirit of the Truce. Conspiracy Smasher didn't even say "Happy Christmas", the stingy old git.

As for the "seagulls"... I'm not giving them any points for restraint, because I know they were scared pissless. And they've no one to blame but themselves. Pity really. I did expect my new best mate Jennifer to show up. And I was looking forward to Nico translating "Silent Night".

Oh well. Maybe next year--if we're still at this.

Cheery bye!

Monday, December 24, 2007

9/11 Christmas Truce 2007 Blog

Jenny's 9/11 Christmas Truce 2007 Blog

As blogged here 12/19/07:

No discussion of any aspect of 9/11.

No shots, no "fishing", no baiting.

Breaking these rules, or the spirit of the rules, will get you coal in your stocking--that is, I don't post your comment.

Suggested topics of conversation: Christmas/holiday season interests, activities, recipes, favorite carols, prezzies, what a wonderful person Jenny is....

(EDIT: because I was unclear whether 12:00 am was 12/24 or 12/25, this is up a day earlier than I planned. My --possible--bad.)




This was a bummer--the usual "Dickens" carolers weren't about this year. Meanwhile we had this talented busker near the coffee shop gamely singing about a "white Christmas" whilst it's pissing warm rain. You've gotta buy the poor sod's CD after that.

Carols I can't get out of me head--even when I want to:

Santa Claus is coming to town

Do you hear what I hear?

Grandma got run over by a reindeer (you can't fight this one--just go with it)

Deck the Halls--this one is begging for a parody music video...

Jingle Bell Rock
--once trendy now certain to annoy every generation for different reasons.

Last but not least--Silent Night--the carol sung during the Christmas truce of 1914. Maybe we can get Nico to pass on his favorite version in German?



Are there any Hanuka "carols"? That is, holiday songs? Or do Jews think that's a tacky commercialization thing? Time is short so I'm going with what I know. Feel free to add any other mid-winter holiday songs from non-Christan traditions in the comments.




Ever had REAL eggnog? Try it--mind need to make it yourself. I get best results with brandy or rum.

Bourbon balls -never made them myself actually. But I had a co-worker pass out some last week, so I might give it a go.

Orange Jelly - the recipe I use is from a medieval cookery book--this one's less tedious, but not as cool as using the rinds for molds and slicing the lot to look like real orange slices.



So, all here? Truthers, debunkers and "seagulls"? Well, what are you waiting for? Get fraternizing! You only have 24 hours to prove you're human to each other. If this goes well, I might consider it again come Easter--on the date of another WWI cease fire.

It's up to you lot what you make of this. I'll be checking in hourly to moderate comments between cooking and what not.

Otherwise have a safe and happy Christmas out there everyone.

Jenny

Updated: 12:03 EDT--comments closed.

Merry Christmas and Good Night to those who came--the war is on again.


Wednesday, December 19, 2007

9/11 Christmas Truce 2007--Mark Your Calendar



Jenny hasn't been around much between holiday madness, working on this and my "naughty and nice" list-- but that's a different blog.

First a wee history lesson:

British-German Truce

The truce began on Christmas Eve, December 24, 1914, when German troops began decorating the area around their trenches in the region of Ypres, Belgium, for Christmas. They began by placing candles on trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols, most notably Stille Nacht (Silent Night). The British troops in the trenches across from them responded by singing English carols.

The two sides continued by shouting Christmas greetings to each other. Soon thereafter, there were calls for visits across the "No Man's Land" where small gifts were exchanged — whisky, jam, cigars, chocolate, and the like. The artillery in the region fell silent that night. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently-fallen soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties. Proper burials took place as soldiers from both sides mourned the dead together and paid their respects. At one funeral in No Man's Land, soldiers from both sides gathered and read a passage from the 23rd Psalm:

The Lord is my shepherd. I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. He leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul. He leadeth me in the path of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

The truce spread to other areas of the lines, and there are many stories of football matches between the opposing forces. The film Joyeux Noël suggests that letters sent home from both British and German soldiers related that the score was 3-2 in favour of the Germans.

In many sectors, the truce lasted through Christmas night, but in some areas, it continued until New Year's Day.

The truce occurred in spite of opposition at higher levels of the military. Earlier in the autumn, a call by Pope Benedict XV for an official truce between the warring governments had been ignored.

British commanders Sir John French and Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien vowed that no such truce would be allowed again. (However, both had left command before Christmas 1915.) In all of the following years of the war, artillery bombardments were ordered on Christmas Eve to ensure that there were no further lulls in the combat. Troops were also rotated through various sectors of the front to prevent them from becoming overly familiar with the enemy. Despite those measures, there were a few friendly encounters between enemy soldiers, but on a much smaller scale than the previous year.

Some of you never heard of this until long after secondary school. Wouldn't do to teach the next generation commanders can be told to go bugger themselves and troops can assert moral authority. Anyway, the point is if these lads could do it risking Howitzers then those of us on-line have no excuse not to try to get to know each other as people.

Now I'm not in the mood for any bollox about how there isn't an online 9/11 info war, or there is no organized disruption--already blogged that here. But in any war there are many reasons people fight. I have no illusions about the motives of the head of ops like Screw Loose Change or the "seagulls". But there are those what get involved by being severely misinformed. And, for sincere rank and file activists on both sides of the 9/11 fence, maybe an opportunity to see each other as people can be educational even if we'll never agree about 9/11.

Mark your calendar:

9/11 Christmas Truce Blog

where: Jenny's blog, post of the same name--comments

when: Christmas Eve-Dec 24th, 2007

starting: 12:00 midnight EDT

ending: Dec 26 12:01 midnight EDT

who's invited: all registered Blogger users, including members of 9/11 activism, "debunkers" of 9/11 truth and the "seagulls".

Terms: Civil conversation about anything except 9/11. Comments will be moderated. No "shots" fired. If you're not sure what a shot is, don't do it. Comments violating the letter or spirit of the truce will not be posted.


Are you game?

Sunday, December 16, 2007

PollenB: Thank you for doing the right thing

We don't need to go into details, do we "chum"?

And more thanks goes to "no-planes Jennifer" for sending my message to Disinfo HQ.

If I didn't know better, I'd think "Jenni" is trying to get in me good books...

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Peter Power--a long overdue reckoning from We Are Change UK



He can run, but he can't hide.

Thanks to g at TruthAction for posting this!

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

The WHOLE Truth about No-Planes

What follows even Nico is too afraid to speak of. At great personal risk I bring this knowledge to you, a secret so shocking, so shattering to the modern consciousness, and so threaten to the status quo until now none have dared to reveal it. After I impart it to you I will undergo re constructive surgery, change my name to “Giri” and live out the rest of my life hiding in Nepal--as a yak. That is how dangerous it is to even type these words. Ready? Here goes:

There are No Planes--AT ALL.

Not before 9/11, not after. Every plane you have ever seen in your life is a drone, a mock-up, or a hologram.


Right—gotta type while I pack.


You may be scoffing now—“Of course there are planes! I see them all the time!”

Really? Where?

“In the air!”

Remote drones. Tiny buggers, look tinier higher up, but they’re only flying 100-200 feet up. But you think they’re some massive jet thousands of feet up. Fooled you, eh?

“What about the noise from the engines?” I hear you ask incredulously.

Ever see those transformer towers? You thought all they did was boost electric power? They’re scattered everywhere, even in the countryside, fitted with powerful speakers that put out “engine noise” whenever a drone goes by. Keeps up the facade, see. Why else would there be electrical towers in the middle of the continent? Gotta keep the farmers fooled, too.

That’s why if you’re on an island and see a plane come in, it’s not as loud when it's further out to sea. The signal to the speakers is weaker at first, see. Gets louder the closer inland the drone comes. That’s also why everyone has to get off the runway, so there are no witnesses to the half truck sized toy that actually lands.

“But, but, I’ve seen planes land and take off!”

Really? Where? Inside the airport, right? All those windows over looking the tarmac are actually video screens. All programmed so you think you see planes landing and taking off.

“But I’ve flown on the buggers!” I hear you protesting.

Um, you think you have. I should be clearer—when I say “no-planes” I mean nothing large enough to actually carry people about whilst flying. Seriously, did you really think in this corporate world any company would take the liability of shuttling people around in a tin can through the air? It’s ridiculous when you think about it. People going up and down in a tin can that would crumple under those massive stresses of going up and down. But they can charge more money because you think you are flying.

This is what happens when you think you’re getting on a "flight":

Once inside the airport your perception are totally controlled. Everything you see is what that they want you to see. Notice you board a plane through a short tunnel. Why don’t they want you to see the outside? Because you’re not walking on a plane, you’re walking into a train. That’s right, a train. A jumbo high speed magnetic sub rail car that you only know about in science fiction.

“But, but—“

Don’t interrupt. I’m burning daylight here. The windows of the “plane”, just like the windows of the airport, are all video screens programmed so you see what you expect to see “outside” the “plane”.

“But I can feel the difference when we take off!”

Yeah, that’s the turbo train being dropped and launched under ground.


"I thought you said it was a "jumbo train"."

I did. I said a "jumbo turbo train".

"Liar."

Shut up and listen. They drop it straight down first, then raise it sharply at a tilt so you feel the “take off”. Then they lower it into the magnetic track and blast away. Across the continent in ten, fifteen hours.

“But what about transatlantic and pacific flights? You saying these trains run underwater?”

Don't be silly. I don't have time for immature questions if you're not willing to look at the evidence. And remember, sometimes you even see “planes” sitting around outside. But they aren’t real. They’re like big toys, see—full sized model mock ups so people think planes are real. What you want to look at is the history of “flight”.

This shill site repeats the usual “planes propaganda”

Orville Wright (1871-1948) and Wilbur Wright (1867-1912) requested a patent application for a "flying machine" nine months before their successful flight in December 1903, which Orville Wright recorded in his diary. As part of the Wright Brothers' systematic practice of photographing every prototype and test of their various flying machines, they had persuaded an attendant from a nearby lifesaving station to snap Orville Wright in full flight. The craft soared to an altitude of 10 feet, traveled 120 feet, and landed 12 seconds after takeoff. After making two longer flights that day, Orville and Wilbur Wright sent this telegram to their father, instructing him to "inform press."


What they didn’t tell you is human flight can NEVER get any better. It’s just not possible to efficiently transport humans through the air. The increased fuel needs of higher weight, with the weight of the fuel, cancels out any lift so that no matter how big you make a plane it will NEVER fly over an altitude of 10 feet. 10 feet is like a constant altitude for any "heavier than air" craft. So human flight was abandoned but the "powers that be" exploited the belief in human flight.

"What did the Wright brothers say about that?"

Nothing. They kept schtum and became millionaires.

"No they didn't."

They kept it quiet of course--

“Hang about! What about the Red Baron and all that? What about all those flying aces?”

Actors. Highly paid actors. That’s obvious, innit? They needed heroes for the war effort and you have to admit it was certainly easier and cheaper to convince the enemy they were under aerial attack by systematically planting bombs and transformer speaker towers, than actually sending someone up to bomb them. And they had the “Aces” strutting around afterwards to prop up the story.

“Right, and the Blitz?”

Oh, clever that. Nazi agents sneaking in by U-boat and planting mines to be set off as drones flew over head.

“And I suppose what you’re going to say next is all the people in the airlines industry are in on it.”

Of course they’re in on it! Loads of money to be made! Mind, every once in a while a kiddie slips at school, says “train” instead of plane, but no one takes them seriously.There’s too much money invested now. The “plane" industry can’t afford to come clean now.

“You’re a nutter!”

Eh, it’s not my look out if you can’t handle the Truth. And it’s not all doom and gloom. Look on the bright side ---all those chemtrails you used to worry about? Don’t. They’re only holograms. Mind, excessive exposure to holograms have their own adverse health effects...

“I’m leaving.”

Me too. Gotta catch that turbo jumbo train before…

BAM! BAM!

...I’m nicked?

“Open up! You are guilty of crimes against common sense! Put the silliness down and come out with your hands up!"

Bugger.

Just for laughs--"debunker" Alex makes a complete ass out of himself


To quote Our Alex:

Heh. A no-planer talking about disinformation. Talk about being clueless.....


This comment only makes sense if Alex followed the link to Arabesques article, titled:
The Sound of Disinformation: What Will They Say Next?


But clearly Alex didn't bother reading it or he'd have found this:

Morgan Reynolds embarrasses the real 9/11 truth movement by making the bogus claim that there were no planes used on 9/11.

"There were no big boeing crashes... I encourage everyone to do a frame by frame, penetration of the south tower, and what you will see is a fake, cartoon display. An aluminum plane cannot go through a building like the south tower was, as if it were thin air. We don't really understand how they did that... they are contrived." [source: Fox News, Youtube, Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews, September 13, 2006]

Proof positive that Arabesque is NOT a no-planer.

Take a moment to enjoy the hilarity of a "debunker" calling a real 9/11 Sceptic a no-planer because he couldn't bother to do 2 mins worth of research by reading through the article.

And Alex isn't the only one with this problem. Patrick Curley is a terminal case. These days he's reduced to being Nico Haupt's stenographer because he's incapable of researching his way out of a paper bag.

So, in addition to being dishonest merchants of twaddle, the disinfo crew is just a bunch of lazy old sods.

And here's me laughing me arse off at the lot. Now who's clueless, Our Alex?

It's About Bloody Time

I thought the New No. 2 would make time to stop by.

Cheers for the acknowledgment at Screw Lucy. Mind, our Pat refuses to admit he WAS ignoring our Kev efforts--I mean how could you miss it with the pretty pics an' all---but at least Pat said something. Thank you. And it only required pulling teeth. Wonder how many times we'll need to"pull teeth" to finish the rest of the list. The acknowledgment from Screw Lucy was only #1:

2: Nico is going to stop "stalking"--that is, ringing people and trying to intimidate them.

3: Unsubscribe all your shills from 911Blogger

4: Last, but not least, stop calling my male people "girls"



It's up to you how painful you want this to be, sunbeam. Me, I've a taste for blood these days. You could say I've become "Mad about Hats".

Be seeing you...

Friday, December 7, 2007

To Whom It May Concern--aka "The Man behind the Curtain", aka "The New No.2"

Because the old No. 2 must be sacked by now.

I realize you aren't personally reading this--one of your wee people is. It's all good--as long as they're snappy about delivering this. And they do want to be snappy--the clock is ticking.

The reports are coming in and I'm more than a bit depressed the "supervillian" debunker/disinfo crowd we've been sparing with are idiots. Bit of a blow to find out you thought you were fighting "Doc Oc" but actually it was just a bunch of second rate nobodies who couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag.

Now this is what you're going to tell your people to do:

1: Screw Lucy is going to start noticing 911Truthers are already confronting Kevin Barrett shite
2: Nico is going to cancel 911Stalker TV--or at least stop "stalking". Frankly he can call his show anything he wants as long as he isn't ringing people trying to intimidate them.
3: Unsubscribe all your shills from 911Blogger
4: last, but not least, stop insinuating my male people are "girls", because you know they're not.


Yeah, that Jenny, she wants the moon, she does. Now why are you going to do this?

Because if you don't sunbeam, I'm bumping all our blogs and articles that make your disinfo lives difficult.


Let's recap how we got here: "the powers that be" hired you and your lot to disrupt 911activism, both on-line and on the ground. On-line that means your job is to poison the terms of the debate. You got two main branches doing that: the Screw Lucy type, "debunking" ad nausium to give the appearance there is a great grassroots opposition to 911Truth, and Ricky's branch, pushing the most ridiculous of theories calculated to make the Truth Movement look like it's full of nutters.

You know this. I know this. The name of the game is who controls the terms of the debate. I'm willing to let our work stand as is for anyone to find, but if you don't stop the really nasty shite, I'm shoving our work in your face.

What was that? You wanted to see that "to do" list again? No prob, guv:


1: Screw Lucy is going to start noticing 911Truthers are already confronting Kevin Barrett

2: Nico is going to stop "stalking"--that is, ringing people and trying to intimidate them.

3: Unsubscribe all your shills from 911Blogger

4: Last, but not least, stop calling my male people "girls"

The time is now 9:00am, PDT. Screw Lucy needs to say something about our Barrett work today. Any of you disinfo tossers breathe the wrong way from here on out--and that includes Screw Lucy--it's BUMP.

Get snappy.



Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Stalking for the Holidays: Nico's Chrismas Special

He's back, he's....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Sorry, about that! 911Stalker TV! Exciting show! Scintillating wit! Memorable repartee!

It's no good, I can't tell a lie--the man's dead boring, now!

Better boring, than homophobic, I suppose. This installment of 9/11 Stalker TV can be seen here.

Sorry, Nico, this isn't up to our standards for embedding. Bad enough you reprise your complete failure to reach anyone--are you sure you have the right numbers? You sure you have the right person? This seems to be a reoccurring problem with you, luv. So, with the exception of some ancient mate at Hustler, who I suspect was only being nice to him, Nico is unable to reach anyone--again. In between failing to reach people, he rambles about his usual rubbish, his accent getting progressively worse.

Forty minutes of this shtick is wearing, let me tell you. The only relief is the reflection of a video of raunchy female santas, periodically mooning the viewer. Unlike Nico's performance, they're clothed, mostly. Unfortunately, being female, they do nothing for me.

I'm telling you, Nico--your show continues to slide like this, I'll stop watching. And you don't want that do you, sunbeam?

Black PR and proof of Paid Internet Shills

After finding Arabesque’s excellent and witty article about the “Mad Hatter”, I did a little research on professional sock puppets. Many people from the “opposite side” of 911 sceptisism –such as Patrick Curley of Screw Loose Change,--- poo, poo the idea there is any organized opposition or disinfo operations, paid or otherwise, against 911 Truth. Pat is quoted as saying:

“For what it's worth I think Jenny's been basically right throughout this affair but like all kooks she mistakes some fellow kooks (Fetzer and Nico for example) for operatives.”

Leaving aside the glaring discrepancy of why someone who professes to be a debunker of 911Truth(Pat Curley), would uncritically repeat any information from a 911 kook(Nico) as fact, with no indication of his(Pat’s) personal research to confirm and/or deny what the said kook’s allegations---leaving that very large elephant of potential liability aside---the historic record shows ample evidence of the FBI among other government agencies targeting activists of all sorts who potentially threaten the status quo, the most famous of these operations being COINTELPRO.

But COINTELPRO was a bit of a dinosaur, even in it’s day. It wasn’t clever enough, see. Beginning during a period of new prosperity, when the tools of modern democracy were working a hell of a lot better than they are now, combined with a citizenry who expected leaders to act responsibly, setting up a centralized organization targeting your own citizens for practicing democracy and directly connected to “the powers that be”, on reflection, was a bit dumb.

The concept was brilliant—in an “evil overlord” sort of way. But the execution mimicked the only structure the powers that be understood: centralized, bureaucratic organization. This structure does have it’s advantages, especially if you have an army to back you up:

You retain total control

You only have to go to one place to get what you need

You only have one place to defend


But there’s one massive liability, particularly if you’re trying to keep up the appearance of an open democracy in a corporate oligarchy: if the voters nick you, you’ve put all your eggs in one basket—and you have no good reason not to give them the basket when they demand it.


And that is what happened COINTEPLRO—except when we demanded to have a look in the basket, they “lost” it.

Well, they learned from their mistakes and the word of disinfo ops today is "outsourcing". Enter corporate players in Black Public Relations who are ready to take info-prostitution to the next level:


In this article I discuss just a few of the many disciplines that largely involve information as a tool to spread false beliefs and fears (and influence the masses, too).

The knowledge of these disciplines was acquired by performing information security audits for the government sector and big financial organizations during the last four years of my life and also by participating in various discussion forums on the topic of modern Black PR practices.

Black Public Relations (Black PR)

Those who control the information flow now govern the world. New technologies and web applications have changed the entire communication blueprint. The big corporations have realized that they might lose control over the masses by letting normal people produce and share their own content—a trend that is already happening with the growth of Web 2.0 social technologies.


Take Advantage Consultants, promoted by Winning Campaigns.


I found this on a DailyKOS blog dated July of this year. Still, timely as ever. Advantage Consultants, once based in Falls Church, Virginia(they moved to Florida at some point), has been around since the mid eighties, likely doing something similar before the Dot com boom, sans the hired Internet trolls.

So what’s the point? you ask.


The point is, if we take the preplanned mass murder of US citizens by high ranking individuals in the US government as a precondition of 911 being an inside job, then we sure as hell can bet the perps will use everything in their power to obfuscate our message, up to and including outsourcing to PR firms to manage their new “cointelpro style” ops.

Hell, even if the administration was in no way responsible for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks, these corporate whores would STILL use these “cointelpro style” online techniques to manage the terms of the debate. If they’re going to do it over elections, 9/11 will not be missed.

Mind, government contracts like these are lucrative and won’t be listed on client lists except in the most bland way. They’d be an embarrassment—after all, hiring people to shill for you on-line is the spaciest of astro-turf. Bit hard to say you have grassroots support over X if you’re caught at this.

Now this isn’t one of those poncey puff blogs—you’re meant to do something with what you’ve learned here. 911 Truth is out funded and out gunned, but we can mitigate that by being clever--and WITHOUT HESITATION removing known problem people when we see them. And if we're not certain, you can take steps to find out:

If you are an administrator or owner of a 9/11 Site or blog, and you haven’t already, you should archive all info of visitors who exhibit consistent "paid interest" behavior, polite or other wise. Liaise with people who known their computer stuff, if you’re not that person. Network with other site admins over the details. After a year or two plus, most established 9/11 sites have the info—just not the frame to apply it. Yes, they really are out to get us. Yes, they’ve hired people to do it. When you’ve find proof, cut them off—unless you can think of something cleverer to do...

If you’re a regular comment contributor, get into a habit of politely checking when you read something you think might be a "paid interest". The obvious signs are arguments that don’t add up, or positions that defy common sense. I know it’s hard to not rise to the bait; I’m not just saying “don’t feed the trolls”. That only works with a species of troll that is disrupting because of emotional disturbance. The shill proper, especially if paid, isn’t going away just because YOU ignore them. Their job is to control/derail the terms of the debate. So when you see crazy making posts that suggest "paid interest", either:

1: Civilly point out the discrepancies in what they said, and let their response or lack thereof stand as evidence.

2: Contribute laterally to the thread, refixing the frame but not responding to them directly. If they’re on a mission, they will respond to you.

3: contact the site admin if something seems truly odd.

What this will do is help flush them into the light of day and help moderators distinguish honest debate from dishonest manipulation. Habitual dishonest manipulation begs for further investigation. Do not expect a confession or capitulation--you won't get it. Always keep in mind, unless you have access to their traffic data, you could be wrong. That is why you keep it civil and leave the aspect of IDing "paid interests" to the mods.

This is going to offend the more idealistic, freedom of speech sort of 9/11 site administrator. Or even the hyper idealist, who think “we should just ignore this and hope it goes away”.

Well, look at your calendar, chums:It’s December of 2007.

9/11 was 2001.

None of us are getting any younger. It’s time to stop pissing about. People who can be proven to only be interested in manipulating 9/11 discussion and activism into ineffectiveness need to go.

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Mad about Hats

Here's an amusing--and educational--article by Arabesque about internet stalkers, well, an internet stalker. I would dedicate this piece to all the prats, including Screw Lucy to the more gormless members of 9/11 Truth, that want people to believe either this never happens or it's pointless to investigate when it does.

So buckle up and hold onto your hats....

The True Tale of the Mad Hatter: Arabesque’s ‘Spooky’ Internet Stalker

By Arabesque

The dark underside of the 9/11 truth movement consists of a strange supporting cast of eccentrics, dis-informers, trolls, internet personas, general-all-around yahoos, and… who knows? This is a story about a Mad Hatter who sang a song of Death and Vengeance to the hooded and mysterious Arabesque.

The Hatter turned to Madness soon after Webster Tarpley infamously described Cindy Sheehan and others as “lying in appalling fashion” and a “wretched individual” in the Kennebunkport Warning controversy. Arabesque, TruthAction and others were reporting these attacks. While bringing attention to this subject, Arabesque wrote: “I am not advocating a conclusion on this controversy, but I am trying to bring attention to the claims and counterclaims of those involved. I believe the main issue of importance is that non-9/11 truth activists are being unjustly treated by promoters of the warning.” [Photo: Mad Hatter wearing one of his many disguises.]

Seemed reasonable enough, right? Or was it? In the 9/11 truth movement, Orwell is rolling in his grave. Reporting personal attacks are the same as making an attack! Speaking out against divisiveness is divisive! Unity is silence in the face of outrageous disruption! Or so some would have us believe… One such person was… we’ll call him the Mad Hatter. Hatter contributed some good analysis and his work was at least appreciated by a few. He was a long-time member of this group and contributed many insights with the appearance of a normal, every day researcher and activist. But after Arabesque initiated a discussion about the Kennebunkport Warning controversy, Hatter began to act very strangely. Hatter’s first comment sounded perfectly reasonable saying, “Misappropriating someone's signature is a crime. In this case I don't know if the typical punishment for such a crime is commensurate with the seriousness of the alleged misdeed."

“Fair enough”, thought Arabesque. “Nothing wrong here, although it has not been proven who has committed the crime.” One of Hatter’s next comments seemed to apologize for Tarpley’s divisive behaviour saying, “I've criticized Tarpley in the past for his acerbic tone. It's possible that Tarpley is simply an a** at times.” But then suddenly, Mad Hatter began to shift into strange territory: "Quite frankly I don't trust anybody completely, and I have considerable mistrust of most. I'm confident that you realize that by calling attention to this dispute while clearly taking a side, you set yourself up to be the object of suspicion."

Suspicion? What was the basis for this suspicion? To some in the 9/11 truth movement, everyone is a suspect. Arabesque responded decisively and concisely with the clear point of view that, “Yes I am taking sides. I am taking sides against personal attacks.”

But the 'Hooded One' had a feeling about Hatter that would not shake; “What is up with this guy?” Arabesque was about to find out. Hatter began to insist that Arabesque was intentionally trying to discredit Mr. Tarpley, and then Hatter appeared to have lost his objectivity, “It seems to me that discrediting Tarpley might be a top priority for those who want to derail the truth movementYou have yet to suggest any ulterior motive Tarpley might have for his actions.

Motive? Now, Arabesque suspected that the Hatter was up to something. It was not Arabesque’s responsibility to provide a motive for anything—only the facts as they stood. This appeared to be an attempt to derail the conversation and manipulate a response which could not be proven and then be attacked as a straw-man. Arabesque replied clearly and concisely, “I don't have to supply a motive for his actions. His actions speak for themselves.” Something was up. And then it got weirder.

Hatter turned to Madness—he posted images side by side implying that 9/11 activists at TruthAction.org were communists. “Communism In America.”

“Well isn’t that pretty weird”, Arabesque thought. “What’s this guy’s problem? Who goes around insinuating that activist groups are communists?” It appeared that the Mad Hatter was trying to manipulate another response. Hatter’s comment seemed more than a little… Mad and not worth answering. At this point, Arabesque figured “he’s just a troll—that ever-so-present entity on 9/11 forums who go around trying to stir things up with nonsensical accusations and diversionary commentary.” But this was completely unexpected since the Hatter appeared to be a normal member of the group, and had never acted this way before! Was there something more to this behavior? Arabesque had a feeling there was.

And then it got weirder and even more transparent. Arabesque ignored the absurd insinuation that TruthAction.org were communists and posted another thread about 9/11 activist Michael Wolsey. It became clear Hatter was not only a troll—he was trying to discredit the Kennebunkport Warning investigators with absurd insinuations—blatant and ridiculous disinformation! Mad Hatter asked in this thread if Michael Wolsey had “any relation to James?” James Woosley, no relation to Michael Wolsey (note spelling difference), was a former director of the CIA. The Mad Hatter did not give James' last name because he knew it was spelled differently. The Mad Hatter had dishonest intentions. To Arabesque’s surprise, Hatter was quickly given the boot from the forum by an administrator for these and other comments insinuating holocaust denial—of which, Arabesque was completely unaware about. Hatter had run out of warnings for his silly disruption, but Arabesque was nonetheless surprised that the HatMan was shown the door. Although it appeared to be the demise of the Mad Hatter, it was just the beginning.

The Mad Hatter is a man of many, often fanciful names and sock puppets—but easily identifiable. Often, Hatter attempts to let others know it is indeed the Madman wearing the Hat. Elsewhere, Hatter wrote “I stayed on the fence until someone pushed me off… I have to say, the evidence I have collected thus far tends to support Tarpley… When it comes to visibility911.com and TruthAction.org, they appear to be connected by more than common purpose.” What was this common purpose? What was this evidence? Mr. Hatter of course, had none and never gave anyhe merely had insinuations. Statements without support or validation. Disinformation. Again, Hatter frequently made the absurd insinuation that TruthAction.org was a communist front group or Communism In America, repeatedly hinting without evidence that it “looks as though Tarpley may be right,” referring to the unsupported accusation that Arabesque and others were disinformation operatives and even “COINTELPRO”. Where was this evidence? Neither Hatter or others have ever provided any. Hatter ironically commented again using innuendo to imply “Strange the focus is on Cindy Sheehan and not Arabesque… I think it's rather clear that you are trying to discredit Tarpley through innuendo and hyperbolæ. Why don't you let Cindy Sheehan speak for herself? As I've already pointed out, you appear to be attempting to discredit Tarpley by any duplicitous means at your disposal. Tarpley names names.” Hatman was exactly describing himself and even Webster Tarpley, not Arabesque! Everywhere, Hatter insinuated, suggested, and hinted without evidence, facts, or proof, “there is an even more insidious form of disruptor. There are several people who are presenting themselves as experts on disinformation, and are, themselves, acting as disinformation operatives. Naming them is tantamount to virtual suicide.” Arabesque responded sarcastically, “probably because I'm really good at debunking nonsensical and absurd… insinuations like this one.” Did Hatter have any proof at all? The Mad Hatter was only a Man of insinuations without facts.

Read the rest HERE.