Time for a to-the-table Dialogue/Debate/Discourse re: KW fallout, decisiveness vs. divisiveness, Strategy and Tactics

Ok, in terms of what I would like to call the 9-11 truth and justice movement, things are both gearing up in energetic momentum and spinning apart centrifugally at the same time. I think these are both good signs, if we are to pause for thought, dialogue and tactical talk, rather than ignore the signs of our moment and press forward willy nilly. The pitch of the talk about disinfo and how to engage it and/or disengage it is high. And rightfully so. There are many divisions and dischords right now, and some would say this is a good start in sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Being that we are a group of people that take such a thing as the idea of "truth" seriously, intense dialogue is very necessary. And the focus must be on ideas and an honest engagement of debate and dialogue both. The problems of unknown truth and undone justice around 9-11 that we seek to rectify can be explained as a problem of silence. The Official Conspiracy Theory people won't have it out with us in a vigorous and public fashion. If we really lived in a free and open society, the basic fact of millions of citizens even having a suspicion that their government was involved in the mass murder of their fellow citizens would have necessitated a hashing out and clearing up of all of this long ago. So, we as a movement of dedicated people must be the change we want to see. We must have out our own differences and suspicions in as open and honest a way possible. Much of this is already happening. I am just asking for an amplification of vigor and transparency.

There are crucial questions that we need to ask of ourselves and each other, and carry on both a debate and a livalogue about their answers.

Questions such as:
How do we deal with each other in a way that is creatively and dynamically engaged, not harmoniously and cultishly unified and not splintered and reeling with soap-operic dysfunction?
Is there a difference between the 9-11 truth (research, debate about info) and 9-11 justice (activism, tactics)?
Is it possible that some clarity about this difference and some much needed individuation of these potentially distinct and mutually-supportive entities might really help us at this point?
What is our "best" information that we want to project as a movement?
What information do we need to continue to dig up and discuss as we progress?
Where does the progressive edge of research have a home for debate and discussion?
What are our specific goals around seeking and attaining justice?
Is justice attainable?
What is our vision of how we can move towards justice?
What is effective activism?
Who is it directed at?
Are there activist modalities that we know of that are under-utilized?
What modalities have we missed completely?
How do we negotiate personality conflicts while staying attentive to our own sense that something might be wrong and need to be addressed?
Do we have timelines and or time constraints that we want or need to be mindful of?

There are many, many more I am sure.

So my proposal, offered up right before I dash out of town and communication for a week is this:
Let's start with the Kennebunkport Warning and have it out. I think it's worth it. I mean let's have the people involved actually talk to each other, rather than just write about each other on blogs or send emails or talk about each other on separate . Let's air this thing out.

Since Cosmos, Michael Wolsey, Webster Tarpley and D.L. Abrahamson all have radio shows (I think DL still has one right?), why don't they trade off. Cosmos host D.L., Tarpley host Wolsey and then a trade off. Arabesque, Colonel Sparks, Bruce Marshall and Craig Hill can get into the act I'm sure if they want to also. What yous think?

I think we can all agree that we don't want to be grouped or group each other with Chip Berlet. This is no good for 9-11 truth and justice. So, it's time to quit the insinuating blogs and the silly cartoons and squash this thing like grown-ups, and/or decide, after it's really been had out, that there are certain differences and disagreements that we are going to have to figure out how to live with or, on the other hand, figure out how not to live with. But that's just my two cents (that might need to be melted down if the paper currency melts down).

Truth>>>Justice>>>Peace Out and Peace In

P.S. I tried out my new chant with some fellow LA Truth and Justicers. They say it doesn't quite roll off the tongue and probably wont catch on. But mark my words, I will get this chant going one of these days, even if it's just me talking to myself.
"9-11 was a military-industrial-intelligence complex, black budget, false-flag, psy-op!"
say it again 3 times like you mean it!

>>I mean let's have the

>>I mean let's have the people involved actually talk to each other, rather than just write about each other on blogs or send emails or talk about each other on separate . Let's air this thing out.

I think you are sincerely interested in helping out, but I think that in this case you are missing the point that the dis and misinfo exists for a reason and that reason often has nothing to do with "both sides wanting the same thing," but much more to do with certain individuals bent on their own purposes, which necessarily involve dividing and disrupting a social justice movement.

Dedicated activists and researchers seriously interested in peace and justice don't call others around them names like "poison pens."

That's just step one.

So it's not about "talking" in most cases, unfortunately, but exposing. There are certainly disagreements over evidence that should involve civil debate, but openly toxic statements against others don't lend themselves to discussion but instead indicate that the person uttering those words is typically not capable nor interested in "changing" what is part of a lifetime of behavior.

Silence is complicity

Silence is complicity

"Hoffman: It’s so clear. What possible motive would there be someone to go making these vicious characterizations of these really well known peace activists like Cindy Sheehan… When people like [Cosmos], Arabesque, and Wolsey report on it, to be viciously attacked by Tarpley with all these ridiculous accusations of COINTELPRO…? Very entertaining to watch, very vivid, just lurid—it’s ridiculous. (http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/webster-tarpley-arabesque-cosmo...) It’s all just completely concocted, he makes it sound like you, and Wolsey and these people that he’s saying are COINTELPRO just popped up in the last year is just an utter lie. I think it’s a really good test of whether people are really in this in the benefit of our movement: are we going to tolerate this sort of thing? Where are the voices of the alleged leaders of the 9/11 truth movement about this and similar incidents? I think the silence from some quarters is deafening."

"Hoffman: Civility, having guidelines of behavioural norms, that there are some things that are over-the-line… If people are going to inject racism or ad-hominem attacks, and disruption—why do we waste our time opening our forums to people who do that? There should be these basic guidelines, norms that we follow, and I’ve seen so much resistance to establishing that kind of environment from some of the leaders of the movement. [It’s essential to have a] civil environment in which we can [critique each other] and show that 9/11 was an inside job."

Cosmos: If you support disruption, and you abide by it, and you keep promoting people who are disruptive, then you become an accessory to it. That’s at odds with “we want unity”. [One of] the tactics [from the 60-70’s employed to allow disruption] that they’ll throw at you is “you’re dividing the movement”. That’s hilarious. People who stand by and watch people get attacked and not do anything about it in the name of unity.

Hoffman: educate yourself about the whole issue of COINTELPRO and what the nature of this cover-up is—to inject nonsense into the investigation, surround our valid analysis of the attack that can be used in straw-man attacks in the Media, and to create this culture within the movement that is hostile to critique. Our challenge is to create a culture that has these guidelines that doesn’t accept this over-the-line, outrageous [behaviour]. What people are making excuses for it, and what people are pointing it out? Maybe that’s a better indicator of who should be recognized as who is really contributing to this movement.

According to Wikipedia:

“An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French for "inciting agent") is a person who secretly disrupts a group's activities from within the group. Agents provocateurs typically represent the interests of another group, or are agents directly assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group.”[6]

Provocateurs “try to disrupt a group by creating discord between group members”[7] in a deliberate attempt to get the targeted group to fight between themselves, rather than their intended opponent. This is divide and conquer.

Unity is not achieved through ignoring disruption and disrupters. In fact, ignoring destructive behavior is exactly what allows it to be successful and continue without interruption. Activist Ginetta Sagan says, “silence in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor.

Michael Wolsey comments on the problem of disruption:

“In the past, and using the mantra ‘for the sake of the movement’, it has been the practice to ignore these disruptors. What has ignoring these people done? Have things got better as a result of ignoring them? Have they gone away? On the contrary, like busy little termites, the have been slowly eating away at the foundations of our movement… We as a movement need to come together on how we handle such disruptors and re-evaluate the unwritten, failed policy of ignoring them and hoping they will just go away.”

Approaching a problem with the wrong solution doesn’t work either. If the problem is divisiveness, you do not counter it with more divisiveness. What are some possible strategies for combating this behavior?

1. Refuse to be a divider or engage in ‘agent provocateur’ behavior. Avoid the use of ad-hominem and divisive labels and “fight back” with reason and civility—not insults.
2. Counter the destructive behavior by offering solutions, respectful critique, and civility.
3. If possible, discipline the bad behavior through comment moderation, part-time and permanent bans, removal from speaking engagements, removal of links to websites, etc. Complain to moderators instead of fighting with those who only want to fight.
4. Encourage dialog with those who will respond to critique. Ignore those who will not respond to critique and are only interested in fighting.

I gave this an 8...

Because I have it on good authority you are sincerely trying. The two people before that gave it a 1--and that could be from any "side", for a variety of reasons I could sympathize with.

One of which is, while I applaud your attitude, and you correctly recognize Chip Berlet as a lost cause, you fail to recognize that DL and Tarpley are also a lost cause. They chose their path, embraced it with vigour, and have relentlessly pursued their attacks for over a month now, and have rebuffed any opportunities to take responisbility for their actions. Ditto for Bruce Marshall and Craig Hill.

However I think your suggestion is spot on for other people like us, among the rank and file--who can't seem to resist snipping at indivuals they don't agree with who are doing no one harm--or, in some cases, are not even registered users of the site in question.

Here's a hint: if you cannot LINK with proof behavior, verbal, writen, electronic or physical, that is either criminal, threatening, insulting or in violation of some relevant rule---and you are STILL seething about what X has done, it is probably PERSONAL. That is not to say your wrong to be suspicious--but it is to say you have NO evidence. So, in such a circumstance, instead of moaning about how so and so irritates you, either start researching your suspicions for confirmation or elimination, or keep it schtum except with close friends. Posting articles calling them a shill JUST because of a disagreement in approach just makes you look like an ass.

Good points Shuminok brought up:

Are there activist modalities that we know of that are under-utilized?
What modalities have we missed completely?
How do we negotiate personality conflicts while staying attentive to our own sense that something might be wrong and need to be addressed?
Do we have timelines and or time constraints that we want or need to be mindful of?

I address some of this in my lauded, or grossly missunderstood(depends who you are), article at TruthAction:

Activism is Counter-Intelligence


And just because it's topical--and there will ALWAYS be a military excersise for the forseeable future, this might help people avoid being manupulated by the May's(Maze?) of the world:


It islong past time that SOMETHING be done, organized in an intelligent, flexibile way. Your blog just misses some of the sublties of the problem. The big tent needs to be taken down and not a moment too soon.

See Cosmos' interview with Hoffman:



this is the song that doesnt

this is the song that doesnt end........(guess whos really laughing while watching this kind of stuff continue to unfold and divert energy? you know who......)

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

maybe we could stop

maybe we could stop indulging Webster Tarpley and stop giving him so much play? its exactly what he wants, to play the victim while the disinfo police call him out(and rightfully so, but is it needed? what good does it really do? does it help to validate him to his crackpot fans that see him being "exposed" or attacked?). i threw his book in the river and never looked back at him. thats what hurts his kind most.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA