If you love your conspiracy theories, this is better than Desperate Housewives! Now current and former members of the AboveTopSecret Forum weigh in with their experiences. Laura Knight Jadczyk sends us the latest installment. Stay Tuned and remember: Knowledge Protects. Extra credit will be given for independent research. Try the searches recommended.
Blue Ibis
AboveTopSecret.com COINTELPRO Update 2
Good thing I didn't bet. (See last words of previous post.) I got up this morning to a whole slew of emails from readers of this little blog, as well as readers/members of abovetopsecret.com. There were also a couple of emails from SkepticOverlord to my husband, Ark. It's all quite interesting considering how the situation could have developed in a completely different way. I'll get to that in a moment, first I want to share a few of the emails we have received along with the abovetopsecret.com "official response."
There have been a number of emails that basically say "Keep up the posts, they offer an enthralling and educational read!" [exact quote from one of them] so there's no point in repeating that over and over again. A couple were a bit more revealing:
Anonymous wrote :
Hi, im writing in response to your article analyzing Catherder's so called debunking of the Pentagon attack.
You guys have stirred up quite a hornet´s nest over there. [at abovetopsecret.com]
Well let´s not dance around the bushes.
A while back ATS had a poster arrive on their site a certain "Whispers in the Dark" I believe his handle was. Now this poster seemed to be in the know so to speak and apparently predicted the Bali Bombings about 48 hrs before they happened. What was different about this guy is the way he posted. He seemed to post in a way that was designed to confuse any Echelon monitoring; you know what Echelon is right?
Now a very well liked and respected member of the forum, a guy who went by the handle "Dragon Rider" believed that Whispers was a genuine insider who had valuable info to impart, for the record I was of the same opinion.
At the time of the postings Dragon Rider was a mod over at ATS and tried his best to nurture Whispers as a source of info. The higher ups at ATS went crazy saying that Whispers was a hoax and that he had hacked into the forum data base to alter the time of the Bali post to make it appear as if he had made the post before the event.
Now opinion at the time was that something was very off about how the whole affair was handled, Dragon Rider was hounded by the Mods at ATS and eventually lost his Mod status and eventually banned outright.
Most of this went on in the private Mod forum but of course with something this big it was hard to keep it from the forum members.
If you can find the Whispers posts on ATS and the saga with Dragon Rider you will see for your self that something just wasn´t right. That is of course if the postings haven´t been erased. ...
Where Dragon Rider went after this I don´t know for sure but if you can find him he may have some useful info for you regarding the suspicion that ATS is a Government run Intel operation, I believe he moved on to another site similar to ATS, it had the word black in the title other than that I can help you no further.
I would ask you keep my [email address] confidential.
Very interesting goings on over there on Abovetopsecret.com, eh? A possible "real gov intel insider"? Well, I don't know about that. But it is certainly curious for the Abovetopsecret folks to claim that the individual hacked into their system to change a date. I wonder if that is possible? Since I'm not a tech type, I can't say, but I reckon anything is possible, even things that are highly unlikely. Anyway, here's an excerpt from another interesting item:
Thought you might also want to note this curious discrepancy.
The thread that was created on ATS that linked to your SOTT article was entitled "Pentagon 911: ATS analysis under critical scrutiny." The curious thing is that SkepticOverlord edited the title himself to change the word "ATS" to "CatHearder's" (note the spelling error, it should be CatHerder's). The reason I bring this up, is because in the emails sent to YOU by any ATS administrators, as published on Laura's blog, they were constantly referring to "our material" and "our work", but when the acronym "ATS" was used in the title of a thread on their website, they got upset and said the article by CatHerder has nothing to do with ATS in any way, that it was purely a work of just a member on ATS, so it should not in any way be associated with ATS.
Fine, but if it IS just one member's opinion with no association to ATS, why did they put it on the front page of ATS and keep it there as the only thing on the front page that has not changed for over a year? And as SkepticOverlord constantly repeats in his posts that he wants a "balanced" view on ATS, yet never ever has he put a link on the ATS front page to ANOTHER article that may give a different view from CatHerder's analysis - is that balanced?
Further, why is he screaming "our material" in his posts and in his emails to you if he does not wish to be associated with the material?
My conclusion is that when it suits them, they disassociate themselves from the material and point the finger at just "some member's personal opinion". But then, at their whim at other times, they claim it as their own. This is a curious inconsistency.
Actually, it is not so curious when you consider the nature of the psychopath. As Robert Hare notes:
In my book, Without Conscience, I argued that we live in a "camouflage society," a society in which some psychopathic traits- egocentricity, lack of concern for others, superficiality, style over substance, being "cool," manipulativeness, and so forth- increasingly are tolerated and even valued. ...
psychopaths have little difficulty infiltrating the domains of business, politics, law enforcement, government, academia and other social structures (Babiak). It is the egocentric, cold-blooded and remorseless psychopaths who blend into all aspects of society and have such devastating impacts on people around them who send chills down the spines of law enforcement officers. [Hare, Robert D., Ph.D., Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder: A Case of Diagnostic Confusion, Psychiatric Times, February 1996: Vol. XIII Issue 2]
Inconsistency, changing the rules at your whim or convenience, is part of the camouflage. Lobaczewski goes into a bit more clinical detail about what is "wrong" with the psychopath:
Analysis of the different experiential manner demonstrated by these individuals caused us to conclude that their instinctive substratum is also defective, containing certain gaps and lacking the natural syntonic responses commonly evidenced by members of the species Homo sapiens. […]
Our natural world of concepts then strikes such persons as a nearly incomprehensible convention with no justification in their own psychological experience. They think that normal human customs and principles of decency are a foreign convention invented and imposed by someone else (“probably by priests”) silly, onerous, sometimes even ridiculous. At the same time, however, they easily perceive the deficiencies and weaknesses of our natural language of psychological and moral concepts in a manner somewhat reminiscent of the attitude of a contemporary psychologist - except in caricature. [...]
In spite of their deficiencies as regards normal psychological and moral knowledge, they develop and then have at their disposal a knowledge of their own, something lacked by people with a natural worldview.
They learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to them.
They also become conscious of being different from the world of those other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance, take a paraspecific variety.
Natural human reactions - which often fail to elicit interest because they are considered self-evident - strike psychopaths as strange and therefore interesting, even comical. They therefore observe us, deriving conclusions, forming their different world of concepts.
They become experts in our weaknesses and sometimes effect heartless experiments upon us. … Neither a normal person nor our natural worldview can perceive or properly evaluate the existence of this world of different concepts. [Andrew Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, Red Pill Press, 2006
As I said, we received an "official response" to our email answering the Abovetopsecret.com forum request for collaboration which I published here in the previous blogpost. As I noted at the time, this email came quite a bit AFTER the link to the blog had been posted on ATS. We had the idea that this was a rather decent approach, and our thought was to "test" the waters with our response. If the owners of ATS were sincere and honest, they would have posted our email (even if they edited the remark about Simon Gray, which we expected), and we would have reciprocated by publishing a retraction of our suggestion that ATS was COINTELPRO. Note that this has always been only a suggestion supported by circumstantial evidence, not a proven fact. You know the saying: if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, there is a high probability that it is a duck even without DNA testing!
Well, the entire day went by and our response was never published. This morning, the following arrived (it was posted late yesterday, we only read it this a.m. Keep in mind we live in the +1 time zone):
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk Subject: Re: 9/11 research and collaboration... please read From: "SkepticOverlord" Date sent: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:25:11 -0600
Sorry for the late response, just checking my email now.
I'm sorry, but because of the improper information about Simon in this message, I will not share it with our membership.
I'm sorry you choose not to participate... and indeed, you hold an incorrect opinion of our site,and an associate of yours is publishing improper assumptions and outrageous fabrications.
All you need to do is examine broader slice for the complete picture:
2004 Top Threads http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/2004_the_year_in_threads.html
2005 Top Threads
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/2005_the_year_in_threads.html
Other wildly popular threads:
I just got back from a FEMA Detainment Camp http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread167902/pg1
Video Shows Beheading of American Civilian Nick Berg http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread48907/pg1
WTC Challenge
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread149925/pg1
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread9247/pg1
Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread182861/pg1
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread50025/pg1 Analysis of the Al Qaeda Beheading Video of Nick Berg
Also, please consider this an official request to have your associate remove the inappropriate comments about our site, and site owners from their blog.
Good day.
Now, we hardly think that SkepticOverlord was unaware of the contents of this blog when he wrote the initial email asking for "cooperation." Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn from their sudden "shift in course" was our refusal to participate on their forum. That suggests that they had specific "plans" in mind regarding said participation/cooperation.
The invitation to examine their threads for a "broader slice for the complete picture" is quite meaningless. As has been historically demonstrated, that is what COINTELPRO does. There is enormous interest among the public in "conspiracy theories," and ATS is pandering to those interests in true COINTELPRO style: agreeing with a lot of "conspiracy facts," all the while keeping people busy talking and not DOing, and also vectoring attention from crucial facts, or twisting the context. They are, as I have written before, "Tar Babies." Robin Ramsay, Editor of Lobster, writes in this month's issue of Fortean Times:
[After 1996 was when] the Internet began to take hold of our intellectual lives and conspiracy theories transferred from TV and magazines onto the Net, where - ever since - they appear to have been something of a worry to our masters in Washington.
The existence of the Internet means that it is no longer as easy to control public perception as it was during the good old days of the Cold War, when mass media were fewer and more manageable, newspaper and TV editors could be recruited or bought by the authorities and stories planted with ease in the press.
Recently, the US State Department has begun trying to rebut some of the current conspiracy theories about America. Their first targets were a couple of websites - www.rense.com and Conspiracy Planet - and the late Joe Vialls, an Australian. What a boost for the named sites! Attacked by the State Department![...]
[Y]ou don't have to be a PR genius to see that what you simply mustn't do is launch official attacks: all they do is amplify and legitimise the theories by announcing that they are deemed to be worth attacking. [Fortean Times 206, February 2006, p. 19]
As we have noted several times, the COINTELPRO attacks on us began early in 2001 and consisted of ad hominem attacks rather than dealing with the issues at hand. It was that experience that taught us so much about COINTELPRO. The fact always remains that when people can't find fault with an argument, they will, instead, attack the person by substituting false or irrelevant assertions about the person's character, life, or whatever. Such argumentation is designed to appeal to emotions or prejudices, and people who are ruled by their emotions and prejudices are easy prey. This is part of the "special knowledge" of the psychopath that Lobaczewski refers to above.
Even though, as I noted in an earlier post here, Carol Morello of the Washington Post asserted that our Pentagon Strike video was single-handedly responsible for re-awakening the public interest in the "No-Boeing at the Pentagon" theory first put forward by Thierry Meyssan, never, EVER, have we been frontally attacked by any government agency. Nor will we be. As Ramsay notes above: "[Y]ou don't have to be a PR genius to see that what you simply mustn't do is launch official attacks: all they do is amplify and legitimise the theories by announcing that they are deemed to be worth attacking."
So certainly, we would expect real COINTELPRO operations to be attacked "officially" in order to legitimize them, but those who have figured out the real answers will not be martyred. It's way too dangerous. Keep in mind that we aren't dealing with stupid people here; they have "motivation masters" working 24/7 to manipulate the public. One of their ideas was the now well-known COINTELPRO "Third Party Attack Protocol." This includes setting up bogus groups and operations - sometimes at HUGE expense - in order to not only be a "Tar Baby" but also, when needed, to launch attacks against bona fide groups and or individuals with no one ever suspecting that it is a State Supported attack. The usual method is, of course, ad hominem attacks, spreading lies and rumors, sending letters and emails purporting to be from the attacked group or individual which seem to confirm the lies and rumors, or otherwise painting the attacked individual in a bad light. An example of that is HERE. When it comes to real COINTELPRO, believe me, we have experienced ALL of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment