Sharpen your pencils boys and girls, there will be a quiz at the end of the class. Today's assignment: spot the twists and traps of a proffered olive branch which is actually a poisonous snake meant to destroy all the good that has been accomplished. This is an open book test, feel free to take guidance cited below from students already enrolled in the course. Many thanks to Laura Knight-Jadczyk and Dr. Arkadius Jadczyk for their hard work.
The mind you save may be your own!
The mind you save may be your own!
Blue Ibis
Abovetopsecret.com COINTELPRO Update
More interesting developments in the abovetopsecret.com forum saga!
As you know, we left the story at the point where I had come to the idea that the creator of abovetopsecret.com - and other forums - might very well be none other than Christian Bailey, the guy who was awarded the $100 million Pentagon disinformation contract. As I noted, I can't PROVE it, but the timeline was sure interesting.
It seems that someone posted a link to my blog on the abovetopsecret.com forum itself... (I simply don't have time to cruise forums, the individual who did this wrote to us afterward, told us what he had done, and apologized for interfering.) At this point, we had fulfilled our agreement to remove any mention of my book from the article and notified the ATS people that we had done so.
Not very long after this, we received a courteous response from the ATC people... it came about sometime after the link to my blog was posted to the ATC board...
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk Subject: 9/11 research and collaboration... please read. From: "SkepticOverlord" Date sent: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 07:30:09 -0600 Please consider an invitation to participate...
Now that we're hopefully on track to resolve the usage details of our member's content, please have a look at this post, and the follow-up responses: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread189339/pg4#pid1926400
We're attempting to fine-tune the 9/11 Pentagon discussions into a short- list of the most critical singular aspects, then tightly manage keeping the discussion in distinct threads on those important aspects. As you've no doubt observed in the initial 2500+ reply thread, the topics wander wildly so that important items get lost in the mass of material.
We'd like to invite you and/or Joe Quinn (or any others from your group), to participate in this special event fine-focus on these issues. The more we can assemble a balanced team of experienced contributors, the more change we have to obtain a mutually agreed degree of truth.
Also, we have a long history of inviting and supporting external collaboration. Had you approached us sooner with your piece, we would have found ways to feature your article through our site (as has been discussed earlier in the thread linked above).
In the interest of collaborative discovery, we hope you choose to participate.
"SkepticOverlord" Community Director and Partner in AboveTopSecret.com
Well, that was friendly enough. However, there are certain problems with such proposals. We submitted it to our panel and the following "estimates of the situation" were the result:
In other words, we would like to vacuum you into our maw and get a serious handle on the damage you are doing to our disinfo operation which was going on quite nicely before you turned up. And hey, perhaps we can dirty your reputation while we are at it. "Mutually agreed degree of truth"? "fine tune"? Plan C more like. It seems the pious air of disgust has worn off pretty darn quick.
"External collaboration" don't you just love those euphemisms? Extraordinary to see the flipside in action again.
And this one:
This - "a mutually agreed degree of truth." is a giveway IMO.
Another:
Yep, it will most likely use the Delphi Technique where the group is steered to a pre-determined outcome that appears to have come from consensus. Moderators will steer the "exchange of ideas" in the way they see fit.
The technique was developed by RAND in the 70's from memory. And the RAND/CIA relationship goes back a long way.
http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/1998/nov98/focus.html
Another:
I like the "tightly managed" threads of "short-listed", "critical singular aspects". Just shunt each troublesome fact/bone into separate compartments to be chewed on, according to the taste of the chewer. No chance of seeing the overall picture by assembling all the different POV.
Another:
From that little pamphlet "How To Spot a Spy" (gosh, it is such a small book but rather powerful in the simple way it outlines the some of the most common COINTELPRO approaches):
"One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things."
Do we seriously think the hypothesis that ATS is COINTELPRO? Because if we do, we need to stay the hell away from them IMO. Also, we would be giving them implicit endorsement in some ways by participating in anything with them. Recently, Laura suggested prophylactic therapy to deal with the pathologically inclined.
Another:
Yes, how nice! They want to fragment everything into tiny pieces and debate each piece ad infinitum. Just what everyone needs: "a mutually agreed 'degree' of truth"!
Another:
This invitation reeks of a trap designed to drain huge amounts of energy. In my personal life, I never accept an invitation from the 'Darkside', because saying 'yes' in the twisted logic of evil means saying 'yes' to EVERYTHING they plan to do.
Another:
The fact they suddenly showed the civil face tells me they are on the verge ofbeing burnt and neutralized and thus losing their value for the gov and it is a very clever strategic movement. I think they have too much too lose and to look civil they HAVE TO co-operate, although I am nearly sure they have a nasty plan.
Another:
It seems really apparent to me that these people are cointelpro. The points that Joe brought up directly in the Flying Fish article shows that they had orders from upon high when they proxied the CATHERDER article. ...
How can we possibly engage anyone who shows that they are completely biased and they are the controllers of the discussion forum. They already have their following believing every piece of distorted psychologically manipulating brain training they choose to espouse. And look at Mr. SkepticOverlord.'s psychopathy in the email he wrote to Ark -
** Had you approached us sooner with your piece, we would have found ways to feature your article through our site (as has been discussed earlier in the thread linked above).
** B.S. - This is the very person whose reference to Us/QFG/PentaFlash - Absolute BUNK. B.S. B.S. B.S.!! Now, are these moderators, owners of AboveTopSecret, that dimwitted, that they themselves believe the CATHERDER article was a "a proof of point well beyond logic". Can they really not discern what is logic? Are they really that dense, that because a piece of debris has green primer that means it was a B757, no other aircraft makers may use green primer, no military manufacturer may use a green primer. The points, one after another are so silly and yet these moderators claiming such great skills in logic and critical analysis seem dumber than mud. I cannot see it as even incidental. I see the whole thing as directly a part of the psyops.
Re SkepticOverlord:
"Had you approached us sooner with your piece, we would have found ways to feature your article through our site (as has been discussed earlier in the thread linked above)."
** Did they afford us this opportunity? No. They proxied the CATHERDER article. Then they promoted it and belittled the Group (QFG) who produced it. They knew who produced the PentagonStrike Flash animation and there was no invite for "external collaboration" "In the interest of collaborative discovery".
This is a fine example of pschopathy or the practice of psychopathic techniques. ATS brokered this analysis, then SkepticOverlord and Springer promoted it coercively, all the time belittling the PentagonStrike Flash. Where was their invite? They proxied CATHERDER's article on 12-9-2004. Well over a year ago.
Their words are nonsense. Let our research stand on its/their own merit. If information comes to light that changes the examination of any of the areas of research, we will gladly update/modify our findings.
Another:
Joe's article sets out the cass position clearly and addresses each of the points in the ATS post. The forum members are aware of the article and, as was mentioned, it is up to them whether they walk through the door [to truth]. Signs of the Times is now a lot more "mainstream" from the public pov than ATS, so it might be a step backward to invest any significant energy in what's been proposed.
We declined the offer, but we wanted to do so in a nice way so that IF, by some chance, it was sincere, we might leave the door open to positive relations. And so, we sent the following email to the abovetopsecret.com people:
Hi,
Thank you for your courtesy invitation to join in your planned discussion of the 911 Pentagon issues.
You write: > We're attempting to fine-tune the 9/11 Pentagon discussions into a > short-list of the most critical singular aspects, then tightly manage > keeping the discussion in distinct threads on those important aspects. However, it is unclear exactly what you hope to accomplish by this fine tuning of the discussion.
We think "fine-tuning" is a misleading and a dangerous concept. Remember that "agents" specialize in "fine-tuning" the discussions on bulletin boards, and in the media. They are also "tightly managed", keeping the discussion in distinct threads - so that it is easy for them to keep all under control.
From our point of view "fine-tuning" and "tightly managing" approaches have never been helpful in scientific discovery processes. Just the converse. Fine tuning and tightly managing are known methods of preventing progress.
Clearly no final resolution will ever be possible with the issues, given that much of the needed information for such a conclusion is not, and probably never will be, available. That is an issue that requires action on the part of those who seek truth, not debate.
The purpose of Joe Quinn's article was not to try and make the definitive statement on the matter since no such definitive statement is possible under the current conditions.
Rather, the purpose of the article was to point out to people how to spot disinformation and to start questioning more openly exactly why there is an agenda to spread disinformation.
Again, that is an issue that requires action on the part of those who seek truth, not debate.
you write: > As you've no doubt observed in > the initial 2500+ reply thread, the topics wander wildly so that important > items get lost in the mass of material.
This is not a surprise, as Simon Gray was recruiting the disscutants for ATS on such forums as newsgroup alt.magick.sex etc.
> We'd like to invite you and/or Joe Quinn (or any others from your group), > to participate in this special event fine-focus on these issues. The more > we can assemble a balanced team of experienced contributors, the more > change we have to obtain a mutually agreed degree of truth.
The term "experienced contributor" is misleading and meaningless. Experienced contributors from alt.magick.sex or CIA will certainly help to find a "mutually agreed degree of truth", but we are searching for The Truth, even if it is not "mutually agreable."
Further, we feel spending energy on any fine-tuned discussion on issues that can never be resolved without more facts, (the issue that requires action, not debate) is playing into the hands of those that wish to divert energy and attention away from focusing on the source of the problem. The question should be why do we need to have such fine-tuned discussions? Why isn't everything out in the open, and who is preventing it from being out in the open?
Certainly, part of what prevents information from being out in the open is the energy spent on debate rather than action. As noted in the book "How to Spot a Spy" that Laura has quoted in her discussion of COINTELPRO:
One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?
1) The message doesn't get out. 2) A lot of time is wasted 3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged 4) Nothing good is accomplished.
FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.
Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.
Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.
The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.
It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.
In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:
"You're dividing the movement."
This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." ....
The agent will tell the activist:
"You're a leader!"
This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist. ....
The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.
A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions. ....
Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....
1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites) 2) Print flyers in English only. 3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares. 4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support 5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing. 6) Confuse issues. 7) Make the wrong demands. 8) Compromise the goal. 9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-spot-cointelpro-agents.html
Quantum Future Group, Inc has hundreds of researchers who dig for facts, analyze them, and then present them in articles on our website. Our researchers include scientists, engineers, linguists, forensic psychologists, historians, and ordinary people with a nose for the truth who spend their time digging up information. If we had time to engage in debates, we would have created a discussion board ourselves years ago instead of concentrating on what we do best: research and presentation of that research to the public.
That is our mission and it is a full time job. Most of us put in 16 hour days.
Therefore, we respectfully decline your invitation to participate in your discussion. Joe's article clearly states our position in the matter and further debate or discussion from our side is not required. We research, write and publish.
As for those who do have the time to engage in discussion, we encourage the asking of the real questions of concern and formulating plans for taking action based on those issues.
We encourage you to turn your considerable influence towards discussions that might actually help the common good: WHY are the facts being withheld? why is there so much disinformation and endless discussion while the necessary facts are being withheld? and what to do about it.
There are many articles on our website that are good starting points for research (note that we do not suggest debate - it is a waste of time.) Any results that any of your members compile into article format can be submitted to us at any time for review by our panel of experts and possible publication. You do what you do best, we do what we do best. In this way, a true collaboration could result.
We were, of course, naturally curious if they would share this with their group. Our prediction is that if they are sincere and "on the level," they will, and future collaboration will result to the benefit of all. If they are not what they present themselves to be, they will not post the email nor will they encourage their members to become true activists. We futher predict that, if they are truly COINTELPRO, that the next tactic will be to start attacking us in all the many ways we know so well: paramoralisms, self-righteous indignation, and so on.
I'm not going to bet on this one because I always have hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment