September 21, 2007

A Message for Webster Tarpley and the Supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning: It’s About the Divisiveness

A Message for Webster Tarpley and the Supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning: It’s About the Divisiveness

By Arabesque

The Kennebunkport Warning has been a source of much controversy.

In examining the divisive behavior surrounding the Kennebunkport warning, many of those who brought attention to this issue are in turn being accused of divisiveness. In fact, some of Tarpley's supporters have said that we are being "divisive" by even bringing up this issue.

"Those who seek to discredit the Kennebunkport warning exhibit a devastatingly tragic myopia (or worse), as they selfishly attempt to engineer a divisive conflict entirely of their own creation, while foolishly ignoring the material substance of the document." Dan Abrahamson, False Flag News

That's an interesting point of view, since "divisiveness" is the core issue that we have been trying to emphasize in the first place; we felt that Tarpley, and the Kennebunkport supporters were being divisive and we tried to bring attention to it. Calling us “divisive” for talking about this behavior is intellectually dishonest since the divisive behavior of the Kennebunkport supporters is our central complaint.

Lately, we have been accused of “CoIntelPro” by Webster Tarpley and his supporters.

First of all, the purpose of CoIntelPro is to weaken activist groups. One of the chief ways of accomplishing this is through divisiveness with accusations (i.e. "you are a CoIntelPro agent"), name calling, and other disruptive behavior. For more discussion, I recommend Michael Wolsey's radio show series on this subject with respected 9/11 researchers Jim Hoffman and John Albanese.

In accusing us of "CoIntelPro", the supporters of the KW are focusing on their primary straw-man argument: "We 'Oppose' the Kennebunkport Warning".

Who opposes the Kennebunkport warning? We discovered going through this that if you take all the slanderous filth, counter-organizing, disinformation and so forth, about two-thirds of it comes from about half a dozen people as far as I can see." Webster Tarpley, Genesis World Report

There is just one problem with this claim: We have never objected to the Kennebunkport Warning. In fact, I supplied my own research to support the warning when it first came out. The claim that we "oppose" the content of the Kennebunkport warning is demonstrably and offensively absurd. Here is how Cosmos explained the controversy early on in the affair:

One thing about this that really disturbed me… it’s something that potentially [caused] this antagonism between the truth movement and the anti-war movement, when the whole thing was intended to building bridges. As someone who’s put effort into building bridges—individually, and with groups in the anti-war movement… I just don’t take it well to have these women’s names put on this document, and when they curiously differ, and say no, they signed a different document, and include in their refutation a message of support for 9/11 truth! …and then to have the people promoting this turn and viciously attack them.

It’s just… it really boils down to are we going to act civilly, or are we going to be divisive.

Indeed, the promoters of the KW refuse to even acknowledge our actual complaint; that their divisive language serves only to split apart the 9/11 truth movement from the peace movement. Has Tarpley even acknowledged the fact that we are objecting to his divisive behavior? Has he said, "I know this is your problem, but I'm doing it for this reason"? No. He has never acknowledged our criticism. Not once in the month since this controversy erupted has he answered our criticisms, admitted his language is abusive and uncalled for, or apologized. Instead, we have been attacked.

This should end the debate. To refuse to acknowledge the complaint of your opponent and pretend he has a different one is intellectually dishonest at best; it's called a straw-man. Why are you hiding from our real complaint Mr. Tarpley? Is it because you can't explain away your inexplicable behavior? Is it because you can't blame us for calling you out on it?

What better way to accomplish divisiveness then to hurl accusations, insults, and engage in persistent name calling against the peace activists and the 9/11 truth activists who defended them? Tarpley's real problem seems to be that we spoke out and said "this is wrong". When the attempts to get the peace activists angry failed, he started throwing the accusations at us instead. Nice try, but you'll have to come up with better insults to get me upset.

Why did Tarpley and his supporters do this? As I have responded to one of Tarpley's defenders: I don't have to explain the motive for why Tarpley did what he did. That's his responsibility. All I know is that he hasn't apologized for what he has done, and neither have his associates.

I don't know why most of the divisive accusations are coming from LaRouche associates. I don't know why Tarpley decided to call us CoIntelPro for bringing attention to his behavior on the anniversary of 9/11. What I do know, is that Tarpley and his associates are engaging in behavior that is divisive and detrimental to the cause of 9/11 truth. It is enough to know this; motive is a secondary issue that can only be answered by Mr. Tarpley. The attempts of the KW supporters to shift the debate away from the core issue of their divisive behavior is intellectually dishonest and extremely suspect. We object to the divisive behavior of Webster Tarpley and the KW supporters, and we are calling them out on it.

To those who say that even discussing this issue is "divisive":

Does pretending a problem does not exist make it go away? Does ignoring a problem because it might cause controversy make things better? Let’s take the example of 9/11. If you saw the evidence 9/11 was an inside job, what good what it do if you did nothing about it? Are you going to say: "I'm not going to deal with this problem because it's going to create too much divisiveness and controversy"? How would that lead to constructive change? Similarly, if your uncle was having financial problems, or was engaging in destructive behavior that impacted your family should you ignore it? If you think that we should ignore problems simply because they are "divisive", why are you reading this blog, why do you care about 9/11 activism, and why do you care about world peace? The first step is acknowledging that there is a problem; the ultimate solution is for the “family” (i.e. the 9/11 truth community) to decide.

Having brought attention to this issue, it is up to the 9/11 truth community to decide how to respond to Mr. Tarpley and his associates.