If this is it...Part 2: Cults, cultures, LaRouche and 9/11
If this is it... “...Girl don't try to make up phony reasons I'd rather leave than never believe...” ~mixed feelings re:911truth Part 2: Cults, cultures, LaRouche and 9/11truth The words cult and culture have a common Latin root, cultus :care, adoration, from colere to cultivate. Their definitions have some over lap: http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/culture Relevant definitions:
c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization d : the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult Relevant definition:
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Thus a cult is not necessarily bad—its a synonym for fandom. But of course, thanks to criminal activities of phony religious organizations, the word cult is usually assumed to mean an exploitive organization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
Cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be, reasonably or unreasonably, considered strange.[1] The term originally denoted a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is considered subjective, and is a result of the anti-cult movement, which uses the term in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and possibly dangerous.
Cult can be used fairly to describe any sub-culture ; as a pejorative term, cult can describe a dysfunctional, malignant and authoritarian subculture. This is relevant because there has been an on again off again attempt to paint the 9/11 truth movement as a malignant cult by detractors, particularly self appointed “debunkers”. The rub is—there's a bit of truth to this idea. Manufacturing Culture There's a great book called Manufacturing Consent: http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499#noop It analyses how news is reported and subtly spun to convince the mainstream culture of what is reasonable and normal. The result being the most outrageous actions come to be reluctantly tolerated with a shrug of “what can you do?” from the majority of progressives. I see it as a type of uber concern trolling: “Yes, its horrible what the CIA and Ollie North might have done, but we can't throw him in prison for the rest of his life and abolish the CIA—be reasonable.” And people are convinced—in spite of glaring evidence of guilt to make “reasonable” concessions, until they've been reasoned out of taking ANY effective action. This works especially if the manipulator plays to the target's sense of fair play, justice, “reason”--all the while manipulating the above in bad faith with the sole goal of evading responsibility. Good, kind, and otherwise intelligent people can fall prey to this tactic. Early in the Bush years, the criticisms of blistering incompetence—coupled with a frustration of a feeble opposition party—led many progressives to be seduced by the sport of Bush Baiting, and chastened by fellow progressives as being inhumane and unnecessarily cruel. Predictably the right pointed to this as a sign progressives were full of hate and rage, and they(Republicans) were victims even though they were in the White House and had a majority. Boo hoo... But the point is, by distracting from the valid criticisms of incompetence and moving the focus to alleged “hate”, not only did progressive discussion become divided, but the real problem of how to confront bewildering incompetence –and putting pressure on Democrat politicians to do their job--fell by the wayside. Don't get me wrong—I see nothing wrong in abusing a political figure who deserves it. It when the activity becomes a substitute for effective action that its gone a bit far—or people have given up on effective action. What does this have to do with the 9/11 truth movement? There are signs the 9/11 truth Movement was being shaped into a culture early on—a culture that would push people into habits of criticism without effective action, as well as other self defeating habits. Why do this? Because cultures are a very effective way of managing people indirectly. Once people accept the culture and identify with it personally, they have automatic initial responses to those who appear to threaten that culture. And if they don't pick up on the threat, real or otherwise, once informed about it, real or otherwise, they are inclined to go with the flow unless they have a good reason not to. Even if they don't agree, they're inclined to not challenge the situation unless they have opposing facts. Even then, they inclined to fade away and not say anything instead of rocking the boat. These people aren't stupid—they're just human. Manufacturing Culture is an effective way of using people's humanity as a weapon of disinformation. There are parallels with Authoritarian cults, but a manufactured culture is not identical. To completely control someone in a cult you have to control their living situation. Only a handful of people involved in the Truth Movement fit this description; I'll cover them later. However many techniques proper cults use to control people or discourse have been observed in 911Truth: [Techniques I've observed or have been documented by others are underlined and/or bold]
1 Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members. 1 _________________________ 2 External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior. 2 _________________________ 3 Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed. 3 _________________________ 4 Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts. 4 _________________________ 5 Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism. 5 _________________________ 6 Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones. 6 _________________________ 7 Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden. 7 _________________________ 8 Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members. 8 _________________________ 9 Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners. 9 _________________________ 10 Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups. 10 _________________________ 11 Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s). 11 _________________________ 12 Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers. 12 _________________________ 13 Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts. 13 _________________________ 14 Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s). 14 _________________________ 15 Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories. 15 _________________________ 16 Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 16 _________________________ 17 Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s). 17 _________________________ 18 Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain. 18 _________________________
Found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_checklist What many people miss is these exact same techniques are used by self identified “debunkers” to control members of the ultra rationalist sub-cultures like those found at JREF. Watch this video on cults and judge for yourself how many manipulation techniques you've observed or been exposed to in Truther or Debunker subcultures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4-Hms7bHqY The biggest difference between dangerous recognized cults and this observed manufactured culture in 911 Truth, while both demonize and vilify people who have left groups with valid criticisms, recognized cults tend to prefer those people were brought back where they can be controlled, the manufactured culture would prefer those people to stay way, presumably because, unlike the proper cult, they know they don't have the resources to completely control ever aspect of people's life. Its safer for people running the show for critics to be kept out, and if possible, not acknowledged. Most of the time this is effective in making the critic give up on the Truth Movement, which by this time has become synonymous with this manipulative artificial culture. In the case of the debunker sympathetic ultra rationalist who has legitimate criticisms of his/her own side, they quickly learn to “not go there” or risk being labelled as a stupid irrational person. Many of us took umbrage at the idea smear against 9/11 truth as a cult—especially considering how dishonest and transparent the attempt was: Dazzled by Disinfo: 911cultwatch.org.uk http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2389 Not only did they link to Nico blog as a top resource(until they were shamed into removing it)--a bizarre thing for a “debunker” operation to do--but makes perfect sense if they were part of the disruption/stalker machine. They also linked to the Screw Loose Change run by two hardcore republicans, with a right-wing agenda clear to anyone who reads their personal blogs. brainster.blogspot.com thechiefbrief.blogspot.com These people are often the first to leap on what the perceive as cult behavior and cult connections, at it is clear in context they mean this as a destructive cult, not a sub-culture. There is in reality no truth to the idea truthers as a group belong to an authoritarian destructive cult—BUT there are indications the small group of disruptors/stalkers might belong to such an organization attempting to manufacture an authoritarian cult-like culture inside the 911 truth movement and the supposed debunkers knew about it all along. Lyndon Larouche and 9/11 Truth What follows will come as a shock to many people, particularly the Webster Tarpley fans, especially fans of his 9/11 theories—they aren't Tarpley theories at all. They're Lyndon Larouche's 9/11 theories. From http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.NineEleven
LaRouche was the very first public figure to challenge the story that the 9/11 attacks were done by Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. While interviewed by Dr. Jack Stockwell, he was commenting live during the attacks against the Twin Towers: Stockwell: […]And that is that the Arabs don't have the ability to pull something of this level off. You feel pretty strongly about that? LaRouche: I know that. I know the Arab governments. I've been talking to them directly or indirectly over some period. At least, the key ones. And they don't want this kind of thing. But I know who does want it. Stockwell: Alright. Now, you were talking about possibly the idea of the Israeli government -- LaRouche: Or certain factions within it. LaRouche interviewed by Dr. Jack Stockwell, September 11, 2001 http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.StockwellInterview LaRouche first called it a coup d'etat, an "inside job" with the help of the Israeli Mossad, and then blamed his "usual suspects", the Zionists: “Under no circumstances, LaRouche assesses, could the attacks of Sept. 11 have been organized and directed by Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda apparatus, based out of Afghanistan. […] LaRouche also emphasizes that the recent years' massive Israeli espionage against and covert-operations penetration of the United States—including the U.S national security and military institutions—may suggest a more direct Israeli involvement in the military coup activities that facilitated the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. […] This apparatus is part of the "Mega" network of prominent wealthy North American Zionists led by Edgar Bronfman, Ronald Lauder, Michael Steinhardt, et al., who are the leading promoters of Ariel Sharon's suicidal war drive, and who wish to draw the United States into that effort to assure a global conflagration on a scale of the First World War or worse.” "Lyndon H. LaRouche Exposes Sept. 11 Coup-Plotters: "Zbigniew Brzezinski and Sept. 11th"", by Jeffrey Steinberg, Press Release, Jan. 2002 http://www.schillerinstitute.org/2002_gen_press/lar_zbig_pr.html Israel/Mossad are behind 9/11 and the drive of the Bush administration to invade Iraq: "Lyndon LaRouche reports that there is now firm evidence that the ongoing drive to induce President George W. Bush to launch a war against Iraq, is a 1996 Israeli government policy that is being foisted on the President by a nest of Israeli agents inside the U.S. government. This Israeli spy network inside the United States was unable achieve their objective until President Bush was entrapped by the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and the falsified accounts of those events provided by this foreign intelligence apparatus, and lured over to their policies. Lyndon LaRouche demands to know: Is this not the motive that explains the who and why of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001? LaRouche demands an immediate Congressional investigation, to help purge the U.S. government of this foreign intelligence apparatus, which attempted, with the 9/11 events, to seize control over U.S. foreign policy." (source: "The Pollard Affair Never Ended!" (press release), EIR, Sept. 8, 2002 ) http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2002/090802pollard_affr.html LaRouche calls "9/11" an incident http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/writings_files/2005/050610_remember_rat... LaRouche and Osama bin Laden's friends: On the role of Jeffrey Steinberg in the spreading of this "blame the Jews" 9/11 Conspiracy Theory into the Arab world: Jeffrey Steinberg, an editor of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.'s Executive Intelligence Review,[20] who has appeared on Al-Jazeera and whose articles are regularly translated into Arabic by the Saudi daily Al-Watan claimed to be the one who uncovered the "Israeli spy ring" that was later used by the Arab media. [21] From: "The Events of September 11 and the Arab Media: The New Antisemitic Myth"; September 13, 2002; MEMRI http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR00902 More on Steinberg here(Truth, Lies, and The Legend of 9/11 by Chaim Kupferberg) http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP310A.html LaRouche 9/11 Conspiracy Theory has also been relayed by an "ex-member"; Webster Tarpley (Website at http://www.tarpley.net/)
Tarpley has a history of tarting up Larouche drivel into something that passes at first glance as rational:
The ever-obliging Webster Tarpley, who at least had the advantage of knowing Latin, prepared a totally specious speech to "prove" Lyn's thesis that Latin was a fascist, imperialist linguistic construct. When Lyn stutters and stammers incoherently about "But polluted with a certain number of Latin loan words, which were the technical terms, like equus and [cavallo?]--difference,” he's referring to one of Webster's key "proofs" that the Romance languages descended, not from Latin, but from Italian, and that Italian did not descend from Latin. That "proof" was the fact that the French word for horse is cheval; the Italian, cavallo; the Spanish, caballo. But, said Webster triumphantly, the Latin word for horse is equus. Therefore, we see that French and Spanish (and Portuguese and Romanian) are derived from Italian, not this fake language Latin. Of course, Webster did not bother to tell his glazed-eyed audience that, just as English has more than one word for horse (horse, steed, nag, courser, etc. etc.), so does Latin. Guess what one of those words is? Caballus. The Latin word for horseman is caballarius--suspiciously like, for example, Spanish caballero, or French chevalier. See what I mean? It is believed that Latin got the word caballus from Gaulish--a Celtic tongue--from whence it passed through to the Romance languages. Well, you get the idea. Webster was intellectually dishonest in his speech because he was trying to curve-fit to prove Lyn's ridiculous point.
http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-classics.htm A revealing statement[bold mine]:
Lyn goes to jail and the org withers away as many people leave, barely with the shirt on their back. We hook up with a Scientology offshoot in the Christic Institute and see that there is money to be made in now attacking the right wing, which we were always accused of working for. IRan Contra gives us an idea, so we now move towards our version of the left. Among the Hollywood liberals who we attacked like clockwork was Ed Asner and his PAC. Asner was one of our main enemies in the past. Bush and Cheney come to office which gives us new life as these guys are the new Anti Christ for the left. Lyn proclaims that Bush Sr. put him in Jail while Clinton set him free to save humanity. Time can make people forget things and lo and behold, Ed Asner gives Lyn a few hundred bucks and shows up at a campaign meeting in Ca.. Since many Hollywood people live in fantasy land, Lyn's fantasies are streamlined and the org purges its history and starts over with LYM. A project is carried out where members in certain areas quietly leave the org and turn up in positions of either journalists for a few papers like Le Monde and The Nation. Other people set up their own traveling road show and hit the jack pot using Larouche and the org's lunacy without naming Lyn. Webster Tarpley and Bill Endghal do this full time.
http://forum.laroucheplanet.info/comments.php?DiscussionID=4&page=12 What does this mean for the 9/11 Truth movement? Several things: 1: Webster Tarpley's theories are Lyndon Larouche's theories 2: any fan of Tarpley's theories are actually fans of Larouche's theory, though they may not know it. 3: by promoting LaRouches 911 theory, Tarpley is almost certainly still part of the of the Lyndon Larouche PAC 4: and by extension has those resources to draw of to help him in his “mission”. 5: If there is organized activity to manipulate the 9/11 truth movement via cult-like manipulations, the Larouch PAC is the most likely source. 6: Endorsing Webster Tarpley is endorsing Lyndon Larouche Some people may not understand why this is a bad thing. “Yeh, the guys a nutter, but maybe he's right about some things.” Maybe, but its not responsible to promote a source that is dishonest and draws its support from a a criminal organization who takes a mafia approach to handling critics: http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org/miles.htm http://lyndonlarouche.org/nancy-kissinger.htm http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/02/10/fair-and-lyndon-larouche-of-soul-mates-and-front-groups/ [9/11truth isn't Larouche's only "project". You'll find many instances of racist/offensive material directed at Obama originates with Larouche's—attempts to undermine real critics of Obama?] http://washingtonindependent.com/55566/was-barney-franks-nazi-questioner-a-larouchie Putting the Kennebunkpost Hoax into perspective: www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/21/143911/917 Just because 9/11 was not done by “the Arabs” does not mean it was done by “the Jews”, or even Israel. And for the rare sincere Truther, who is NOT a-Nazi wannabe and who believes there's value in researching possible Israeli involvement, they'd do themselves a favor to NOT use sources from a political cult leader implicated in murder. Nor would they want to associate themselves with the criminal cult tactics used by fake truthers and debunkers alike in the wake of the Kennebunkport Hoax. In closing be aware: there is a malignant artificial culture infecting the 911 Truth movement. It has been there from almost day one, and overlaps (as much as it can get away with) genuine activism. It plays off of your justified fears, gains trust appealing to truths you know, takes advantage of your sense of fair play and free speech to try to convince you to discard intellectual discrimination and critical thinking skills. A person started out researching 9/11 and find themselves surrounded by people pushing the New Lizard World Order run by Jews that used Directed energy space beams on 9/11. And no closer to either understanding what happened or a new investigation. It sounds insane, but this happens. Good, kind, and otherwise intelligent people falling prey to ignoring and/ or excusing the worse theories and/or behavior because of their investment in the culture. It takes a serious shock for many of them to snap out of it—unfortunately for many that wake up call comes in the form of vicious cult-like harassment when they refuse to toe the party line agenda, that's more interested in promoting Jews/alien/space beam rubbish than justice for the victims of 9/11. Next: If this is it..Part 3: Kennebunkport and WQ2RX: past and future attacks in 9/11Truth
- Col. Jenny Sparks's blog
- Login to post comments
Wow, that HTML format really got screwed up...lol
First time that's ever happened to me here--guess there has to be a first time. ;-)
Fortunately it worked fine most places:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/26/870024/-If-this-is-it...Part-2:C...
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=38148
The important bit...Tarpley's theories are NOT Tarpley's--
What follows will come as a shock to many people, particularly the Webster Tarpley fans, especially fans of his 9/11 theories—they aren't Tarpley theories at all. They're Lyndon Larouche's 9/11 theories.
From
http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.NineEleven
Tarpley has a history of tarting up Larouche drivel into something that passes at first glance as rational:
http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-classics.htm
Will be a bit of a shock to some, I know...
I'm not sure...
I'm not sure what exactly this blog post is about. It's probably a combination of the html format problem and the content talks about many things that I just never cared to follow.
It seems the main point is to warn 911 Truthers who are considering Israeli involvement in the 9/11 Attacks. I will head the warning but I have to say I've never actually experienced 911 Truthers who think "The Jews" did it. And I can't imagine that anyone would actually join a club if the leader said "hey, the Jews did 9/11!".
It seems a bigger problem is that this idea that there are all these people who think "The Jews Did It" is mixed into the debate whenever the question of Israeli involvement comes up. Whether on purpose or just a knee-jerk reaction in fear of being accused as a 'jew hater' or whatever...I don't know or care.
Whether a cult leader or satan himself pointed out Israeli involvement in 9/11, it doesn't matter much to me. I will reference those facts because they are the most relevant to the crime scene and the attacks on 9/11/2001. We have Israeli agents arrested and detained, we have the alleged 911 Hijacker Ziad Jarrah who's uncle was apparently an Israeli Spy in Lebanon, we have historical examples like the attack on the USS Liberty where Israel attacked a US ship and killed 34 US servicemen in an attempt to sink the ship and bring the US into a war in the middle east. We have Israeli agents following some of the alleged hijackers around and then practically hand delivering information that was later used to frame "Muslims" for the attacks on 9/11/2001.
Anyone who has study the material knows the case against Israel is much stronger then the case against "Muslims" or "Al Qaeda".
Anyone who claims 'The Jews Did It" has has already marginalized themselves and I really don't see any kind of threat to 9/11 Truth from this view point. I think more importantly we should be careful not to allow the fear and threat of being called a "Jew Hater" cripple our ability to categorize and consider evidence that points towards the culprits of the attacks on 9/11/2001.
"I'm not sure what exactly
"I'm not sure what exactly this blog post is about. It's probably a combination of the html format problem and the content talks about many things that I just never cared to follow."
Most people seeing such a mess--and a mess it is!--would scroll down for an explanation in the comments, where they would have read this post with two helpful links with excellent format:
Wow, that HTML format really got screwed up...lol
First time that's ever happened to me here--guess there has to be a first time. ;-)
Fortunately it worked fine most places:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/26/870024/-If-this-is-it...Part-2:C...
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=38148
--links which I suspect you've actually read, therefore it should be obvious what the point is--Webster's Tarpley's theories are Lyndon Larouches theories. Anyone promoting Webster Tarpley is actually promoting the work of a criminal cult leader. I'll be happy to make that clearer if there is any more confusion. Fact, I'll be more helpful and repost the article as a comment--for some reason the HTML in comments is more stable than in blog submissions currently. A site upgrade quirk?
Does the WZO represent Israel?
I believe the connections between the WZO, Silverstein, Lauder, Herbits, and others close to the crimes of 9/11 are worth examining. Most people have never even heard of the WZO. Even fewer understand the history and significance this organization has played in world history over the past century.
We need to move beyond superstitious ignorance regarding Zionism and the concomitant knee-jerk rejections.
Reposted in proper format--
If this is it...
“...Girl don't try to make up phony reasons
I'd rather leave than never believe...”
~mixed feelings re:911truth
Part 2: Cults, cultures, LaRouche and 9/11truth
The words cult and culture have a common Latin root, cultus :care, adoration, from colere to cultivate.
Their definitions have some over lap:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/culture
Relevant definitions:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
Relevant definition:
Thus a cult is not necessarily bad—its a synonym for fandom. But of course, thanks to criminal activities of phony religious organizations, the word cult is usually assumed to mean an exploitive organization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
Cult can be used fairly to describe any sub-culture ; as a pejorative term, cult can describe a dysfunctional, malignant and authoritarian subculture. This is relevant because there has been an on again off again attempt to paint the 9/11 truth movement as a malignant cult by detractors, particularly self appointed “debunkers”. The rub is—there's a bit of truth to this idea.
Manufacturing Culture
There's a great book called Manufacturing Consent:
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499#noop
It analyses how news is reported and subtly spun to convince the mainstream culture of what is reasonable and normal. The result being the most outrageous actions come to be reluctantly tolerated with a shrug of “what can you do?” from the majority of progressives. I see it as a type of uber concern trolling: “Yes, its horrible what the CIA and Ollie North might have done, but we can't throw him in prison for the rest of his life and abolish the CIA—be reasonable.” And people are convinced—in spite of glaring evidence of guilt to make “reasonable” concessions, until they've been reasoned out of taking ANY effective action.
This works especially if the manipulator plays to the target's sense of fair play, justice, “reason”--all the while manipulating the above in bad faith with the sole goal of evading responsibility. Good, kind, and otherwise intelligent people can fall prey to this tactic.
Early in the Bush years, the criticisms of blistering incompetence—coupled with a frustration of a feeble opposition party—led many progressives to be seduced by the sport of Bush Baiting, and chastened by fellow progressives as being inhumane and unnecessarily cruel. Predictably the right pointed to this as a sign progressives were full of hate and rage, and they(Republicans) were victims even though they were in the White House and had a majority. Boo hoo...
But the point is, by distracting from the valid criticisms of incompetence and moving the focus to alleged “hate”, not only did progressive discussion become divided, but the real problem of how to confront bewildering incompetence –and putting pressure on Democrat politicians to do their job--fell by the wayside. Don't get me wrong—I see nothing wrong in abusing a political figure who deserves it. It when the activity becomes a substitute for effective action that its gone a bit far—or people have given up on effective action.
What does this have to do with the 9/11 truth movement? There are signs the 9/11 truth Movement was being shaped into a culture early on—a culture that would push people into habits of criticism without effective action, as well as other self defeating habits. Why do this? Because cultures are a very effective way of managing people indirectly. Once people accept the culture and identify with it personally, they have automatic initial responses to those who appear to threaten that culture. And if they don't pick up on the threat, real or otherwise, once informed about it, real or otherwise, they are inclined to go with the flow unless they have a good reason not to. Even if they don't agree, they're inclined to not challenge the situation unless they have opposing facts. Even then, they inclined to fade away and not say anything instead of rocking the boat. These people aren't stupid—they're just human.
Manufacturing Culture is an effective way of using people's humanity as a weapon of disinformation.
There are parallels with Authoritarian cults, but a manufactured culture is not identical. To completely control someone in a cult you have to control their living situation. Only a handful of people involved in the Truth Movement fit this description; I'll cover them later. However many techniques proper cults use to control people or discourse have been observed in 911Truth:
[Techniques I've observed or have been documented by others are underlined and/or bold]
Found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_checklist
What many people miss is these exact same techniques are used by self identified “debunkers” to control members of the ultra rationalist sub-cultures like those found at JREF.
Watch this video on cults and judge for yourself how many manipulation techniques you've observed or been exposed to in Truther or Debunker subcultures:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4-Hms7bHqY
The biggest difference between dangerous recognized cults and this observed manufactured culture in 911 Truth, while both demonize and vilify people who have left groups with valid criticisms, recognized cults tend to prefer those people were brought back where they can be controlled, the manufactured culture would prefer those people to stay way, presumably because, unlike the proper cult, they know they don't have the resources to completely control ever aspect of people's life. Its safer for people running the show for critics to be kept out, and if possible, not acknowledged. Most of the time this is effective in making the critic give up on the Truth Movement, which by this time has become synonymous with this manipulative artificial culture. In the case of the debunker sympathetic ultra rationalist who has legitimate criticisms of his/her own side, they quickly learn to “not go there” or risk being labelled as a stupid irrational person.
Many of us took umbrage at the idea smear against 9/11 truth as a cult—especially considering how dishonest and transparent the attempt was:
Dazzled by Disinfo: 911cultwatch.org.uk
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2389
Not only did they link to Nico blog as a top resource(until they were shamed into removing it)--a bizarre thing for a “debunker” operation to do--but makes perfect sense if they were part of the disruption/stalker machine. They also linked to the Screw Loose Change run by two hardcore republicans, with a right-wing agenda clear to anyone who reads their personal blogs.
brainster.blogspot.com
thechiefbrief.blogspot.com
These people are often the first to leap on what the perceive as cult behavior and cult connections, at it is clear in context they mean this as a destructive cult, not a sub-culture. There is in reality no truth to the idea truthers as a group belong to an authoritarian destructive cult—BUT there are indications the small group of disruptors/stalkers might belong to such an organization attempting to manufacture an authoritarian cult-like culture inside the 911 truth movement and the supposed debunkers knew about it all along.
Lyndon Larouche and 9/11 Truth
What follows will come as a shock to many people, particularly the Webster Tarpley fans, especially fans of his 9/11 theories—they aren't Tarpley theories at all. They're Lyndon Larouche's 9/11 theories.
From
http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Cult.NineEleven
Tarpley has a history of tarting up Larouche drivel into something that passes at first glance as rational:
http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-classics.htm
A revealing statement[bold mine]:
http://forum.laroucheplanet.info/comments.php?DiscussionID=4&page=12
What does this mean for the 9/11 Truth movement? Several things:
1: Webster Tarpley's theories are Lyndon Larouche's theories
2: any fan of Tarpley's theories are actually fans of Larouche's theory, though they may not know it.
3: by promoting LaRouches 911 theory, Tarpley is almost certainly still part of the of the Lyndon Larouche PAC
4: and by extension has those resources to draw of to help him in his “mission”.
5: If there is organized activity to manipulate the 9/11 truth movement via cult-like manipulations, the Larouch PAC is the most likely source.
6: Endorsing Webster Tarpley is endorsing Lyndon Larouche
Some people may not understand why this is a bad thing. “Yeh, the guys a nutter, but maybe he's right about some things.” Maybe, but its not responsible to promote a source that is dishonest and draws its support from a a criminal organization who takes a mafia approach to handling critics:
http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org/miles.htm
http://lyndonlarouche.org/nancy-kissinger.htm
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2010/02/10/fair-and-lyndon-larouche-of-soul-mates-and-front-groups/
[9/11truth isn't Larouche's only "project". You'll find many instances of racist/offensive material directed at Obama originates with Larouche's—attempts to undermine real critics of Obama?]
http://washingtonindependent.com/55566/was-barney-franks-nazi-questioner-a-larouchie
Putting the Kennebunkpost Hoax into perspective:
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/21/143911/917
Just because 9/11 was not done by “the Arabs” does not mean it was done by “the Jews”, or even Israel. And for the rare sincere Truther, who is NOT a-Nazi wannabe and who believes there's value in researching possible Israeli involvement, they'd do themselves a favor to NOT use sources from a political cult leader implicated in murder. Nor would they want to associate themselves with the criminal cult tactics used by fake truthers and debunkers alike in the wake of the Kennebunkport Hoax.
In closing be aware: there is a malignant artificial culture infecting the 911 Truth movement. It has been there from almost day one, and overlaps (as much as it can get away with) genuine activism. It plays off of your justified fears, gains trust appealing to truths you know, takes advantage of your sense of fair play and free speech to try to convince you to discard intellectual discrimination and critical thinking skills. A person started out researching 9/11 and find themselves surrounded by people pushing the New Lizard World Order run by Jews that used Directed energy space beams on 9/11. And no closer to either understanding what happened or a new investigation. It sounds insane, but this happens. Good, kind, and otherwise intelligent people falling prey to ignoring and/ or excusing the worse theories and/or behavior because of their investment in the culture. It takes a serious shock for many of them to snap out of it—unfortunately for many that wake up call comes in the form of vicious cult-like harassment when they refuse to toe the party line agenda, that's more interested in promoting Jews/alien/space beam rubbish than justice for the victims of 9/11.
Next:
If this is it..Part 3: Kennebunkport and WQ2RX: past and future attacks in 9/11Truth
I got your point
Ok. Thanks. Even after a second, better formatted read I'm even more confused.
1: Webster Tarpley's theories are Lyndon Larouche's theories
2: any fan of Tarpley's theories are actually fans of Larouche's theory, though they may not know it.
3: by promoting LaRouches 911 theory, Tarpley is almost certainly still part of the of the Lyndon Larouche PAC
4: and by extension has those resources to draw of to help him in his “mission”.
5: If there is organized activity to manipulate the 9/11 truth movement via cult-like manipulations, the Larouch PAC is the most likely source.
6: Endorsing Webster Tarpley is endorsing Lyndon Larouche"
With your logic, those who theorizes about Israeli involvement (what you call Laroche's Theory) could be associated with Lyndon LaRouche because that is 'his theory'. You blur the line between 'promoting LaRouche" and "theorizing about Israeli" and give the impression they are one and the same. By "LaRouche's Theory" I"m assuming you were referring to the sentences you bolded sections:
Wouldn't the logic you applied to Tarpley apply to me if I were to promote the anything on the list above? For example, let's say I post a blog detailing the Israeli involvement in the 911 Attacks.
1: JPass' theories are Lyndon Larouche's theories
2: any fan of JPASS's theories are actually fans of Larouche's theory, though they may not know it.
3: by promoting LaRouches 911 theory, JPASS is almost certainly part of the of the Lyndon Larouche PAC
4: and by extension JPASS has those resources to draw of to help him in his “mission”.
5: If there is organized activity to manipulate the 9/11 truth movement via cult-like manipulations, the Larouch PAC (JPASS) is the most likely source.
6: Endorsing JPASS is endorsing Lyndon Larouche"
When? Where? I've been around this movement since 2002 and never have I seen this type of stuff taken seriously at all. 99.9% of the 911 Truthers and potential 911 Truthers-to-be that I encounter don't and would never take these types of theories seriously.
In conclusion, I think this write-up of yours is more dangerous then the web you are weaving between LaRouche, Tarpley and information that might detail Israeli involvement in the attacks on 9/11/2001. You associate solid leads with discredited and imaginative theories and discredited activists. You mix things that are seriously important to 9/11 Truth with things that 911 Truth movement has collectively discarded years ago or never even regarded as important in the first place. My impression is that you are scaring people from thinking about and researching Israeli involvement in the 9/11 Attacks.
This is the impression your article gives off.
discredited activistst
FYI to all...
In my comment above I said::
You associate solid leads with discredited and imaginative theories and discredited activists.
I didn't mean to imply that I think Webster Tarpley and LaRouche were 'discredited activists'. My point was that the article implies they are discredited and I really know little about them or what 'their theories' are.
Ok. Thanks. Even after a
Ok. Thanks. Even after a second, better formatted read
Or you could have followed the alternate links that were already posted the first time and you wouldn't have had a problem
I didn't mean to imply that I think Webster Tarpley and LaRouche were 'discredited activists'. My point was that the article implies they are discredited and I really know little about them or what 'their theories' are.
My apologies. I got an idea somewhere you'd read his 500 page book in its entirety and recommended it heartily.
But I must have been mistaken. I suppose you can ask other die hard Tarpley fans about his theories. I'm sure they'd be glad to help. Or you can follow all the other links above--come on, the research has been done for you....
And I believe I was clear: "any fan of Tarpley's theories are actually fans of Larouche's theory, though they may not know it." Sincere people may innocently go about promoting Tarpley shite--but would they if the knew it was really Lyndon Larouches shite? Of course not. That's why they hid it.
If there's any of Larouche's "theory" that can stand separate from his drivel, lovely--people should be able to source that and avoid Tarpley as a reference--and his dangerous associations--- altogether. The only people who benefit from anyone STILL promoting Tarpley's shite at this point--fulling knowing what he is and what he's done-- is the Larouche PAC and whomever they're working for/with at the mo. Whatever agenda Tarpley/Larouche "theories" support, they do not benefit 911 activism.
now I'm really confused
I can assure you that what you THINK that screen-shot of a conversation I had almost THREE YEARS AGO means...is not what it actually means. I've never read, purchased, held or quoted the book "Sythetic Terror". Your screen shot of this three year old conversation does not convey the context of the exchange that took place. I'm imagining you searching for "JPASS + TARPLEY" looking for a 'gotchas' and I have to be honest with you...it creeps me out just a little bit.
But I must have been mistaken. I suppose you can ask other die hard Tarpley fans about his theories. I'm sure they'd be glad to help. Or you can follow all the other links above--come on, the research has been done for you....
Yes, you are mistaken.
There are other people here discussing this topic. There is no need to make personal, inside references to things you know I'm familiar with...while leaving other readers and commenters in the dark. If you are going to insinuate something about me, please give others the courtesy by including them in the entire conversation. By the way, I barely know who that person is and have barely chatted with them. My experiences with her have been all positive from what I remember. But more importantly, I've never had any communication with you and I have no idea who you are. If you want to get personal, call me and do an interview.
It seems it is you who is caught up in a cult of some sort. You seem to be weaving a confusing web and somehow, because I was critical of our article, I've now been included in this web you've created. It looks like you've gone on a witch hunt only to find an out-of-context, three year old chat I had with someone.
Sorry if you're upset--
"And I just noticed something--I'm talking about cult infiltration and manipulation in 911 truth--I really don't give a flying f*ck about the so called "theories". Since their source IS LYNDON LAROUCHE--as in WHAT HE DREAMED UP ON HIS OWN--the 'theories" in question are irrelevant."
don't be
I said "creeped out" and "confused". I'm not upset. I don't even know you and can barely decipher what you're talking about.
Sorry, you're still upset...
After all you've had such wonderful experiences with Tarpley fans surely you should be able to get an explanation about Tarpley's positions, and not still be floundering in "I don't know, I'm not sure, I'm confused". Problem is, too many Tarpley fans are either criminals, engaged in criminal behaviour, or desperately, desperately trying to project and provoke people, because they refuse to take responsibility for years of unethical and/or criminal behaviour and their support of a cult leader.
"And I just noticed something--I'm talking about cult infiltration and manipulation in 911 truth--I really don't give a flying f*ck about the so called "theories". Since their source IS LYNDON LAROUCHE--as in WHAT HE DREAMED UP ON HIS OWN--the 'theories" in question are irrelevant."
?$)@??$???
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and neither do I. My dismay and confusion was directed towards you and your odd behavior here. I don't care about Webster Tarpley.
"I don't care about Webster
"I don't care about Webster Tarpley."
So you DID follow some of the links and understand what a dangerous Larouche goon he is! Brilliant! And good job--knew we'd get there in the end! ;-)
what?
I don't know how you are drawing conclusions and you make no sense to me. "I don't care about Webster Tarpley" means just that. It doesn't mean I read links, went and got a hamburger, wrote you a love song or anything else other then I don't care about Webster Tarpley, his theories or his connection to this Larouche guy.
See this is the problem with your write up. You make so many accusations and insinuations and mix them up in a big pool of molten non-sense. Follow links? I can barely understand the content of your article and the meaning of your comments. My inclination is to run as fast as I can the other way.
I think you're caught up into this stuff and the way you act seems to more resemble the way that Cult followers treat detractors and critics.
You still on about this?
Honestly, been busy too to check in --
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6550
--a bit surprised you're still on about... whatever you're on about.
"the way you act seems to more resemble the way that Cult followers treat detractors and critics."
You mean like "the way" an individual threw a temper tantrum because it was shown anyone pushing the work of this man is pushing the work of a cult leader? You don't get it. I don't have time for that tot. I care about helping people and warning them about what's out there. If that makes cult fanboys and fangirls show their colours in a big raging tanty, so much the better.
Ta.
Nazi Or Rare Sincere Truther?
I'm addressing the sentence I bolded. This sentence exemplifies the danger in your logic. First, I can't tell what you are saying. Are sincere truthers rare? Are sincere truthers who look at Israeli involvement and who ARE NOT nazi wannabes rare?
I believe you are insinuating that it's rare to find someone interested in the Israeli connection to 911...who is not a wannabe nazi. Either way it's poorly written and flat out not true.
So do you think I'm a wannabe nazi? Or am I the rare exception?
You know, for someone who doesn't care...
..you sure have allot of things to say:
and the content talks about many things that I just never cared to follow.
I think it's close to 1000 words of "not caring". I'd put it through a word processor to check, but I've better things to do.
My inclination is to run as fast as I can the other way.
And yet you kept coming back to bump the thread for reason.
Me, I've got work to finish and a cold to recover from-- so I'll leave you to your fun...
Why I'm being a bastard about Tarpley/Larouche
http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan
http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/duggan-high-court1.htm
This is what happens to people who get too close to cult thugs or --worse-- are invited into their groups/front groups under false pretences. And the way Tarpley's wee groups operate are basically like cult front groups. Larouche's "theories" have been used to both infiltrate groups in 911truth and suck people into dangerous situations.
And I just noticed something--I'm talking about cult infiltration and manipulation in 911 truth--I really don't give a flying f*ck about the so called "theories". Since their source IS LYNDON LAROUCHE--as in WHAT HE DREAMED UP ON HIS OWN--the 'theories" in question are irrelevant.
Tarpley's 9/11 work is well sourced
I don't worry about whether Tarpley got some of his ideas from La Rouche or not. His work draws mostly from original verifiable sources which stand on their own merit. His interpretation is really of secondary importance.
hiding behind the flag
simple question?
Please fill me in...why is this a simple question? I have no idea what you're talking about.
I guess the Beastie Boys video is some sort of hint but who the hell knows.