Showing posts with label Kennebunkport Warning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kennebunkport Warning. Show all posts

August 10, 2008

The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy Reviewed



The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy Reviewed

By Arabesque

On August 29th, 2007, Webster Tarpley issued the Kennebunkport Warning. It claimed “massive evidence” suggested that a US-Sponsored false flag terror attack would be orchestrated in “the coming months”. The original document listed signatures by Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright and others.

Or did it?

At least five anti-war activists including Cindy Sheehan denied signing the document and an ensuing controversy erupted. While those who denied signing the document were civil and cordial, those who created the warning offered insults, accusations, and divisive behavior. Later, those investigating the affair were targeted with accusations and insults along with false allegations that they “opposed” the Kennebunkport warning and “worked for the Ford Foundation”. Charges of incivility against the warning promoters remain unacknowledged.

While many offered their take on the controversy, a “9/11 truth leader” responded without naming names or taking sides; giving advice on how to deal with disinformation, infiltration, and agent provocateurs. Jim Hoffman offered his thoughts on Cosmos' radio show:

"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... I think it’s a really good test of whether people are really in this in the benefit of our movement: are 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."
The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?

Arabesque’s investigation into Webster Tarpley’s Kennebunkport Warning. Reviews the claims and counterclaims of those involved in the controversy. See also: The Kennebunkport Warning: A Hoax? The Truthaction.org investigation into the Kennebunkport Warning controversy and Michael Wolsey's article, 9-11 Synthetic Error - The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley.

Webster Tarpley: Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, Michael Wolsey, and Truthaction are “disinfo”

A summary of the divisive language, accusations, and ad-hominems in the controversy by Webster Tarpley and his supporters against Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activists, and those investigating the controversy

Cosmos and Jim Hoffman discuss the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy on Truth Revolution Radio: October 15, 2007

Cosmos interviews Jim Hoffman of 9/11 research to discuss disinformation, disruption, and the Kennebunkport Warning controversy

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

Examines the lack of response from the Kennebunkport Warning promoters to charges of incivility, and an answer to the false claims that those investigating the Kennebunkport Warning are being “divisive” and “oppose” the warning

A Response to Winter Patriot about the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy

A response to the misconception that our investigation claims to prove who is "telling the truth" about who signed the Kennebunkport Warning. This affair is controversial for two main reasons: the denial of signatures and the resulting incivility.

Kennebunkport Warning Cartoon: We are Funded by the Ford Foundation Because we Oppose Divisive Language?

A response to a cartoon depicting investigators of the Kennebunkport Warning as working for the Ford Foundation

Who signed the Kennebunkport Warning?

Signers include four LaRouche disciples and several endorsers of the use of Directed Energy Weapons and TV "fakery" on 9/11.

9/11 Truth Leader on Disinformation and Infiltration

Advice from a 9/11 truth leader about how to deal with disinformation, infiltration, and agent provocateurs.

9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries

Discussion about disruption, incivility, and personal attacks within the 9/11 truth movement.

Who is Captain May?

A supporter of "next 9/11" research and articles, anti-Semitism, numerology, and accusations of COINTELPRO against 9/11 researchers/activists who investigated the Kennebunkport Warning.

The Latest on the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy

Links, additional updates, and commentary on the Kennebunkport Warning controversy

All Posts on the Kennebunkport Warning

Who signed the Kennebunkport Warning?



Who signed the Kennebunkport Warning?

By Arabesque

It is well known that Cindy Sheehan and three others denied signing the Kennebunkport Warning. In this joint statement, they offered support for the 9/11 truth movement. Another "signer" was contacted by Col. Jenny Sparks and also denied signing the warning. All five said that they signed a document only involving impeachment, not a "false flag" warning. Interestingly, Chip Berlet reveals that:

Tarpley may have left the LaRouche group, but it has not left him. Tarpley acts as a sockpuppet for LaRouche, spreading delirious venom throughout the antiwar movement. The LaRouche group has a long history of conning people into signing statements based on misleading descriptions of the actual text. Déjà vu.
But Webster Tarpley was not the only LaRouche disciple in the controversy. Three others had direct ties to Lyndon LaRouche. All of these LaRouche associates attacked or spread insinuations about the anti-war activists who denied signing the warning. Looking at the controversy, it is quite revealing to look at who actually signed the Kennebunkport Warning and more importantly, who attacked and slandered activists during the controversy.

Who signed the Kennebunkport Warning? Here are some of the highlights:

Key:
  • LaRouche Associate
  • Attacks/Slander
  • Accusations of COINTELPRO
  • Endorses Directed Energy Weapons/TV Fakery
Direct Disciples of Lyndon LaRouche
Others who signed the warning:

August 4, 2008

Kevin Barrett and his PR Manager Slander 911blogger, Truthaction, and 9/11 activists



Kevin Barrett and his PR Manager Slander 911blogger, Truthaction, and 9/11 Activists

By Arabesque

Kevin Barrett is running for Congress on a "9/11 truth" platform. His public relations manager (PR) is Rolf Lindgren, who posts at 911blogger.com as Galileo. In a reply to prominent 9/11 activist and blogger Jon Gold, Lindgren wrote on 911blogger:

"Dr. Barrett likes to take the high road, and stay out of catfights between feuding activists, especially in a public forum. Catfights make bad impressions on newbies."
What "catfight" was Lindgren referring to? He was speaking about the Kennebunkport Warning controversy in which Cindy Sheehan was called a "wretched individual" and 9/11 activists were slandered and attacked for reporting on the controversy.

Lindgren's statement is misleading for several reasons. First of all, the Kennebunkport Warning controversy was not a "catfight", since the attacks were almost entirely one-sided as I prolifically documented. This statement is also inaccurate since Mr. Barrett participated in the slander. In other words, Barrett was a part of the controversy. After adding his signature to the Kennebunkport Warning, Barrett said the following about Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war activists:

"But Tarpley’s ill-considered accusation is nothing next to the mendacious fraud accusations put forth by the four regretful signatories... Frankly, if I were one of the Warning’s organizers, I would be strongly considering legal action. The possibility of cointelpro involvement in this affair is not to be dismissed. It is hard to imagine how anyone could be so stupidly unethical as to make transparently false accusations of forgery without some form of pressure having been applied. That pressure could come from threats; or, more likely, from “nice antiwar friends” from the foundation-funded pseudo-left... the kind of people professional 9/11 coverup agent Chip Berlet hangs out with. Cindi Sheehan and her foundation-funded fake-peace-movement “friends” are easy targets for this kind of manipulation by professional psy-oppers. Wake up, Cindi! Anyone who takes foundation money is on the CIA payroll. The foundation-funded “left” magazines, radio shows, and organizations are CIA propaganda outlets. It really IS that simple."

(Note: For the record, the current version of this article was edited to remove these attacks after 9/11 activists complained, but the screenshot I have attached proves that Barrett made these statements.)

Ironically, as oilempire.us has pointed out, Barrett himself was awarded a State Department Grant. As I have documented, virtually all of the slander and attacks like the example above came from Webster Tarpley and signers of the Warning in response to 9/11 activists reporting the attacks against Cindy Sheehan and others. For more than a month, this slander continued, which included the commisioning of a professional quality cartoon.

Now, as I have repeatedly pointed out, reporting attacks is not an attack. If I am a reporter, and I report that person X is attacking person Y, I am not making an "attack" against person X, am I? Conflating critique or criticism with ad-hominem is a straw-man. Recently, Barrett has further slandered 9/11 activists in relation to this controversy on his radio show:
"I know Tarpley was being sort of tongue in cheek [calling 9/11 truth activists Michael Wolsey, Cosmos, Arabesque, and Col. Jenny Sparks COINTELPRO agents]... but no. 1 that's just not a not a smart thing to do [Barrett proceeds to ignore his own good advice]--no. 2 even though I agree that two of the four people he named---that is the ones who had aliases who are afraid to operate under their own names--[disgusted voice] these people are obviously frauds and plants, bogus.

Hill: "They're children playing with computers".

Barrett: Maybe that's it. I don't know, those people I have no use for, whatever Webster wants to say about them I happily endorse. The people with real names that he called out were actually good people. Maybe misguided on this particular issue... throwing them in with these two false names--COINTELPRO people who are intelligence fronts or idiots, whoever they are was completely mad. It was really unfair to those two real human beings. I told him so, I gave him a really hard time after that."
Remember, Barrett's PR manager claimed that he did not take a side in the controversy and that he did not involve himself in "catfights". This is demonstrably false, since as you can see he is accusing me of being a COINTELPRO operative on his radio show without any evidence.

As a short side note, notice that Barrett says that activists were "misguided" about the controversy. The real issue--the one that Barrett and others continuously evade is that we said: personal attacks against activists are wrong and divisive. How can anyone say with a straight face that we are "misguided" about this issue--the only issue that we argued was most relevant in regards to the controversy. It continuously amazes me how this simple issue is continuously re-framed and avoided.

Now as if this was not enough, Mr. Barrett made a "call for unity" shortly before his recent attacks on 9/11 activists. As I have argued all along, attacks on activists are divisive and destructive. However, it is very difficult to have "unity" with individuals who insist on attacking other activists. This should be obvious. Keeping the above "call for unity" in mind, Barrett is now slandering 911blogger as an "Islamophobic" site.
"...I am dismayed that... 911blogger.com, has continued its recent policy of silencing and expelling Muslims and those with views approximating those of the global Muslim mainstream...

Sadly, I have to wonder whether [911blogger may be Islamophobic]. A few months ago, the only two Muslim regular posters at 911blogger, myself and John Leonard of Progressive Press, were banned from 911blogger, and the excuses for the banning in both cases were transparently ridiculous. ([Reprehensor], who is now the sole Decider at 911blogger, claimed he was banning me because I had invited John Lear, a highly qualified pilot with some odd views, on my radio show. But Lear had already been on other 9/11-oriented shows run by non-Muslims, such as Rob Balsamo's, without any complaints from Allan.)

[note by Arabesque: According to Reprehensor "John Leonard has not been banned from [911blogger]". However, 911blogger no longer accepts paid ads from Leonard, says Reprehensor.]

Meanwhile those who promote the ridiculous LIHOP "blame Pakistan" and "blame the Saudis" Islamophobic hang-outs have been endlessly promoted at [Reprehensor]'s new version of 911blogger; evidence implicating Israel and Zionists is off-limits; and people like Elias Davidsson, the son of Nazi holocaust survivors who proves there were no Muslim hijackers, and Jay Kolar, whose work supports Davidsson, are downplayed or ignored...while Muslim account-holders and those who share their perspectives are expelled. It is as if [Reprehensor] and company are desperately trying to save the "blame the Muslims" core of the 9/11 psy-op, even after the official story has unraveled.

American society is so permeated with double-standards, so drenched in an ideology of Jewish superiority and Muslim inferiority, that people like [Reprehenser] of 911blogger can effectively ban all Muslims and Muslim-friendly perspectives and not only get away with it, but perhaps not even fully understand what they're doing. Islamophobia has become like the air we breathe -- toxic, omnipresent, and unremarked-on."
Why is Barrett making "calls for unity" with divisive activists like Jim Fetzer, but spreading lies that 911blogger is an "Islamophobic" site, that he was banned for "being a Muslim", that 9/11 blogger is "silencing Mulsim-friendly perspectives", and that 9/11 activists Arabesque and Col. Jenny Sparks are "COINTELPRO operatives"? These and other charges are false. On what basis is Kevin Barrett attacking myself as a "COINTELPRO" agent? Probably, in response to the fact I wrote an article about him. The entire article is essentially a collection of direct quotations by Kevin Barrett. Is this the first time that Barrett has made accusations against someone for quoting his own words? In fact, it is not. According to the respected 9/11 research website wtc7.net:
"MUJCA.com is apparently mostly the work Kevin Barrett. Before August 2007, 9-11 Research expressed concerns about Barrett's apparent sympathy with Holocaust deniers, based on previously published conversations with the OilEmpire.us webmaster archived here. However, we removed quotations from that conversation after Barrett wrote to us to express his belief that our excerpt of it was libelous. Barrett's public statements suggestive of violence are in stark contrast with 9-11 Research's policy stressing civility, verifiable information, and rational analysis. In 2007 Barrett's support for 9/11 junk science presented as 9/11 Truth typified by postings on James Fetzer's website became increasingly obvious."

source: 911research.wtc7.net: Activist Resources
.
That's right: Apparently, quoting the words of Kevin Barrett is now evidence of "libel" or that you are a "COINTELPRO agent". And it appears that Lindgren, his PR manager (who obviously has a very difficult job) isn't above slander or "cat fights" either: he attacked activists at truthaction.org as "bat shit insane" in response to criticism of Kevin Barrett.

Again and again we return to what I think is the core issue: Attacking activists is wrong and divisive. Criticizing Mr. Barrett and others for their divisive statements and actions is not an attack. I'll repeat myself: reporting attacks are not the same as making an attack.

Mr. Barrett is running for Congress while representing the 9/11 truth movement. I believe that the 9/11 truth movement should demand responsible behavior from anyone who claims to represent it, and that if we don't demand it we are going to be burned and we are going to be discredited. Remaining silent about slander and damaging behavior that affects the movement as a whole is among the most damaging and serious problems that the 9/11 movement faces. Pretending that there is not an issue allows any serious problems to continue unaddressed and for the movement to be continuously misrepresented and discredited.

See also:

Barrett's PR representative Rolf Lindgren spreads Disinformation: insinuates that "Arabesque" attacked truthaction when Lindgren originated attacks

Barrett's PR representative: "Arabesque, the entire Barrett Campaign appreciates your great work for the Truth"

November 5, 2007

Who is Captain May?



Who is Captain May?

A supporter of "next 9/11" research and articles, antisemitism, numerology, and accusations of COINTELPRO against 9/11 researchers/activists.

By Arabesque

"Don’t call me Deep Throat... call me Captain May." Captain Eric May

Who is "Captain" Eric May?

"Captain May, a former Army intelligence and public affairs officer, is the founder and commander of Ghost Troop, a 300-strong unit comprised of military and police veterans and active duty, along with civilian research/activists. He is on a self-declared "mission of conscience" to oppose the Bush War Cabal."
Ghost Troop is comprised of:
"former military and interested civilians, many with a background in recon and intelligence... working on the analysis of the 911-to-be (ergo 9112B) event which has been pre-programmed into the public via the media as a matter of WHEN, not IF."

While the above citation claims that Ghost Troop consists of “former” members of the military, another article reveals that there are "current" members:

"Commanded by Captain Eric H. May, Ghost Troop consists of current and past high-level military professionals who claim expertise at reading governmental strategies and predicting what will happen next. Cracking embedded codes plays a significant role, says Captain May, as does utilizing a highly sophisticated network of intelligence operatives and analyzing events that perhaps have a hidden agenda. [...]

CAPT. MAY: Ghost Troup [sic] is really an analytic group. As a trained intelligence officer I serve as the chief analyst. As a trained public affairs officer I serve as the unit spokesman. What I put out is the distilled intelligence product of many Ghost Troops. They send me the reports and sometimes I do a little back-and-forth with them. They keep me informed, and I polish my ideas and Ghost Troop analysis with top experts in the field, sometimes across many countries and several continents. [...]

ICONOCLAST: You have said that you already have informants imbedded [sic] in various governmental and corporate entities. Are you seeking to expand upon these?

CAPT. MAY: At all times. [...] Some of the most prominent people in the 911 Truth Movement, for example, are Ghost Troops. We had a U.S. ambassador in the unit as chaplain for the first three years."

Captain May has been predicting the "next 9/11" since at least 2004, and his personal bio gives his background in the military. He claims to have "spent five years with Houston's 75th Division (USAR) as an Opposing Forces Controller, meaning that I learned better than most -- even most experts -- how to run contrarian scenarios."

Captain may is a supporter, signer and endorser of Webster Tarpley's Kennebunkport Warning of a potential false flag attack:

"The Kennebunkport Warning is short and strident at 200 words. It has been posted widely on the Internet, and in last week's edition of The Lone Star Iconoclast. Since then, though, it has come under sustained fire from a swiftboat attack aimed at its authors and signers, and even its word choices. Every aspect of the document has been called into question -- except its content."
[see Kennebunkport Warning Controversy for a response to these claims]

Not only has May endorsed the Kennebunkport warning, but previous warnings as well. In fact, he has been interviewed on the radio by fellow supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning including Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, and Webster Tarpley. Morgan Stack, yet another Kennebunkport warning signer/promoter features his work on his website 911truth.ie as noted below by Jim Hoffman. Radio interviews include:

"· Captain May was interviewed by both Jim Fetzer and Kevin Barrett on their radio shows about a potential new 9/11.

· "Captain May's interview on Dr. Kevin Barrett's radio show discussing his article Next 9/11, Summer, 2007? (7-24-07)"

· "In his July 3 interview with Dr. Kevin Barrett, Captain May addressed the prospects and probabilities of a July false flag attack on U.S. soil, and of a consequent escalation of the Mideast War (Iraq and Afghanistan) to World War Three (Syria and Iran, et al.)."

Other Radio interviews and a list of articles by May are numerous and the “next 9/11” theme is strongly emphasized. A sample of article titles advocating this theme include:

· A Nuclear Nightmare - The Portland Plot

· Stage Set for 'New Pearl Harbor'? Only a domestic terror attack can save discredited Bush

· Loose Nukes Looming Near By

· 911-2B: American Nightmare & Neocon Fantasy

· Staging the Portland Nuke (A Comedy of Terrors)

· A Dawning Dictatorship? (911-2B & NSPD-51)

· Next 9/11, Summer, 2007? (w/ Top Three U.S. Nuke Targets)

· Is this Administration planning another 9/11 on May 11th?

· Operation Apocalypse, End-Timers and End-Game Strategy

· 911 Truth and Texas Terror

It can be noted, that one of the functions of disinformation is to discredit true information by associating it with false/bad/misleading information. A famous example of this is known as the “the boy who cried wolf” fable.

Captain May is also an endorser of numerology in articles such as “9/11, 3/11, 7/11 Terror Dates: Is there an ‘embedded code,’ and can we use it to save ourselves?”:

"· The 9 and 3 month numbers were square and square root of each other

· There were exactly 911 days between the dates 9/11 (2001) and 3/11 (2004)

· There was a reported body count from the Madrid bombings of 199 (which was 911 with the numbers "flipped" — 9’s to 1’s; 1’s to 9’s: 911/199)

· There was even a reversion of the body count downward (who got up and left the morgue?) to 191 — which is an anagram (mix-up) of 911!"

Captain May has been using numerology to predict the "next 9/11" since at least 2004:

We're either closer to a geopolitical adjustment (i.e., reducing our (sinking) Middle Eastern footprint), or just that much closer to 911 (the sequel), which I've been predicting as 9/27 (i.e., 9/9, i.e., 9=9=18; i.e., 1=8 = 9). Again, 9/27 will be the 1111st day since 911 (which was 11 years from the announcement of the New World Order by King George XLI).
According to Captain May, understanding numerology is important because the planners of the next false flag attack:
"like to communicate with this Illuminist number code and the media is actually passing the information on to the many levels of members, alerting them of the potential dates and times of planned acts of terror... They are also using the repetitive name game, another way of feeling superior. Just think about it: Oklahoma City, Okla., New York, N.Y. and now maybe Texas City, Texas."
Using numbers and name games to predict the next 9/11? Jim Hoffman observes that David Ray Griffin's appearance in Ireland was canceled because of Captain May:

"In Ireland David Ray Griffin's appearance was canceled and he was labeled anti-Semetic due to posts by "Captain Eric May" being featured on Morgan Stack's 911truth.ie website.
* May is yet another "former" intelligence person who advocates numerology to expose the 9-11 coverup.
* May is openly anti-semetic, describing the media and Hollywood as 'controlled by the Jews'."

A brief and short internet search on articles by Captain May reveals that he is antisemitic:

"In this case it is the controlled media, who use Jewish Cabalism, and the "Bush Boyz" (criminal officials and agents), who use Masonic coding, and they're reporting their handiwork in the Great Plains! . . . I wonder why the Jewish film industry would make a mistake like that, rewriting the plot of reality to convince us -- with a powerful movie -- not to obsess about the prospect of embedded code in the mainstream Jewish news media?" - Captain Eric H. May

"Dear Mr. Green, I read with great interest your essay "Holocaust Fundamentalism - You WILL Believe" just now, and am eager to forward it to Ghost Troop, my associates (military veterans and civilian supporters). We have come to be astute in the importance of body-count numbers to political purposes, and aren't a bit surprised to find that thoughtful men like you are questioning "official reality" in the Holocaust... We are specifically rooted in the matter of the current Zionist Media efforts to keep the real number of US dead GI's covered up in the Middle East. The same forces that want to exagerate [sic] the suffering of the Jews on the one hand want to minimize the suffering of the Christian Army they have duped into killing Moslems. […] If you told me you thought you found an exaggeration factor of "5" (in the Holocaust), I'd just say it matched the minimization factor of five (in the Middle Eastern War). Captain May / Ghost Troop"

"Believe me, all, those of us, like Ghost Troop, who are intellectual opponents of the Jewish Zionist kulturkampf -- which we call the infowar -- are the rational opposition. I provide one stark link to our unit infowar history, from this summer, when we were involved in what we coded "Ghost Troop 9112B." It's from a most valued international infowar ally who stabbed us in the back for trying to hold true to the Constitution, when he and his cult wanted us to renounce that prudent pact to join a growing international -- and revolutionary -- movement against the Jews http://100777.com/node/1373
Captain Eric H. May, MI, USA
CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+
Mission of Conscience / Patriots in Action"

"No question about it, the American People are being readied for another Al Qaida attack -- and they have been told that it will be in the heartland of the Homeland months ago. The WMD attack, high death tool and ensuing tower collapse to top it all off will achieve the kind of "iconic" psychological effect necessary to carry the war spirit to the nuclear level necessary to impose a Middle Eastern Final Solution -- for the equal benefit of the co-founders, the Military Industrial Complex and the Israel Lobby. The first target for the American "counterattack" is obvious. Iran is already being shaped into a monster by Judas Journalists with their headquarters in New York and their heartbeat in Tel Aviv. The best propagandists in broadcast and print first insinuated -- and now insist -- that Iran is a "nuclear threat" bent on a "nuclear confrontation," that might have to be met by a "nuclear option." Any idea is worth hanging a "nuclear" label on, and any excuse will do to start a nuclear war!
Captain Eric H. May, MI/PAO, USA
CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+
Mission of Conscience / Patriots in Action"

"I re-include the press release we of Ghost Troop have issued, giving confirmed "news" that the Zionist-controlled US Media has repressed for 30 months, in complete disregard of the tenets of the Constitution and the ethics of journalism… Remember Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir's comments to the World Islamic Conference back in the fall of 2003? He said that US Jews dominated US cultural and political life -- and given that 80% of the Neocons are Jewish, it's not my fault -- nor Mahathir's -- that his remarks are right on! [...] Regards and thanks, CPTMAY"

"Our Ghost Troop mission of conscience began with honoring our dead comrades in the services who were receiving no just counting by the propaganda press. That mission has been covered widely in the international media and US alternative media, and is summed up nicely (I think) by National Vanguard. We became creative in finding ways around the Israel Lobby's propaganda arm (they call it the media) to pursue just honors for our fallen brothers and sisters, who are dying in far greater numbers than are being reported.
Captain Eric H. May, MI/PAO, USA
CO, Ghost Troop, 3/7 Cybercav+
Mission of Conscience / Patriots in Action"

Captain May's “Jews control the media” theme of was subtly repeated in his piece “Amerika Über Alles” — Our Nazi Nation” posted on 911blogger by Carol Brouillet:

"Neither Hitler nor Bush could have effected their radical plans without a party full of functionaries and a compliant national media, of course. Hitler relied on his “Nazi” party, a word derived from the name of his National Socialist organization. He had a brilliant individual named Joseph Goebbels to control the Reich Propaganda Ministry and rally the public behind Nazi policies. Bush relied on his “Nozi” party, a word derived from “Zionism,” with the first four letters Z-i-o-n remixed into N-o-z-i. He had a brilliant cartel of Zionists to control the American Mainstream Media and rally the public behind Nozi policies."

Another article by May entitled “Jews for Torture” was hidden after breaking guidelines at Indymedia.

This is only a short sample of Captain May's work and antisemitism. Mark Rabinowitz from Oilempire.us questions why an anti-semite is promoted by websites like NY911Truth and MUJCA, supposedly a part Jewish alliance:

"Why does both MUJCA and NY911Truth feature a blatant anti-semite on their sites? ( a google search returns 14 entries [on MUJCA]) He sounds reasonable enough on these pages, but apparently no one has read a single other thing the supposed "former" intelligence Captain speculating about numerology has written. One would imagine that the Jewish members of the Muslim Christian Jewish Alliance might take offense, but apparently they haven't noticed either."

Captain May appeared on Webster Tarpley's radio show to accuse Jenny Sparks and Arabesque of being "trained COINTELPRO professionals", "organized COINTELPRO cells", etc.

"I wasn't referring to Cosmos in my comments about the disinformation efforts being conducted at 9/11Blogger. Candidly, I can't remember any particular comments by Cosmos. As for the equally pseudonymic Jenny Sparks and Arabesque, it's easier for me to have an informed opinion about them. Were I not busier with more important things, I think I could come up with a pretty good article identifying those who are either actual COINTELPRO or merely useful idiots being manipulated by COINTELPRO, and perhaps even grouped them according to the cells within which they work. In some cases over the last four years, my associates and I have even been able to trice [sic] COINTELPRO agents back to their FBI handlers." http://www.mail-archive.com/political-research@yahoogroups.com/msg09517.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chicago911inquest/message/180

[see Kennebunkport Warning Controversy for a response to these claims]

These comments are also attributed to an email by Captain Eric May:

"I believe that... the more prolific of our antagonists in the Kennebunkport Warning matter were professional agitators. To take one example, 'Colonel Jenny Sparks' was harassing both the Oregon Truth Alliance and Portland Nuclear Inquest (which I lead) in the weeks before the Kennebunkport Warning. In typical agitator fashion, she claimed to do so in order to defend the 911 Truth Movement and debunk our "alarmism" for alerting Portland to the dangers the nuclear simulation, Operation Noble Resolve. She and cohorts infiltrated both group lists and hurled monkey wrenches in every direction before getting the boot. As a lasting memorial of the encounter, they then set up their own user group, made up of a mixed set of a dozen agitators and useful idiots, largely dedicated to damning me and browbeating [other local activists]. Every once in awhile I read it for amusement."

And these accusations of COINTELPRO were found in a radio interview with Webster Tarpley:

"Uh, with Jenny Sparks I think you're at both ends--I think she uses professional cointelpro cooperation and then useful idiots where ever they can be found... They're... trained cointelpro professionals--agitprop activists--and their job is not to produce positive analysis. If you can look far and near for any article of any consequence, by any of these people and you'll not find it. But what you'll find is a constant rat-a-tat of criticism against anyone else's work. And that is because their mission is not to develop the area of 911 analyses, or the next 911 prediction--it's to impede 911 analysis and prediction. So, these are classic disinformation tactics… you have to realize there are organized cointelpro cells I've run into half a dozen of them. Anything from military professionals who went by rank, although would not sign their work, to, you know, cute synonyms like Arabesque or Jenny Sparks who would not sign their work… they usually coalesce and target specific points. You have to see them as military assets." [Note: Captain May has never provided any evidence to support these false allegations. See Kennebunkport Warning Controversy for a response to these claims]

The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy was characterized by accusations without evidence such as these. Indeed, Captain May was not the only one to make these allegations of COINTELPRO against investigators of the Kennebunkport Warning. After Captain May, Webster Tarpley, and others made these allegations for more than two months, an "Internet Cointelpro Alert" was posted:

"An effort is being made in some quarters to falsely attribute these faked and counterfeit postings, emails, and videos to Webster G. Tarpley, Bruce Marshall, Captain Eric May, and to other persons sympathetic to the Philadelphia Platform and/or the Kennebunkport Warning. Any such attempted attribution is a lie."

[note: see a list of confirmed emails, statements, radio interviews, Google videos, etc. by Webster Tarpley and his associates]

In fact, we have tied some of these videos to an associate of Captain May. "Ozzy bin Oswald", a member of Captain May's Ghost Troop email list was responsible for posting some of these videos, some of which accusing Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks and others of belonging to Al Qaeda. These videos often make use of radio interviews by Captain May, and Webster Tarpley in the background.

You can see some of these videos at Ozzy bin Oswald's youtube account, which is linked to on one of his posts on Captain May’s Ghost Troop email list. Many of these videos by Ozzy bin Oswald reference the aliases of posters of other Al Qaeda accusation videos. While this is not a direct connection to Captain May, it is a connection nonetheless.

Summary

Captain May advocates antisemitism, holocaust denial, numerology, frequent warnings of another 9/11 attack, and accusations of COINTELPRO against legitimate 9/11 researchers frequently with dubious misinformation and often no evidence at all. His work is promoted by 9/11 activists who have a history of promoting and advocating controversial claims, researchers, and divisive behavior. "Guilt by association" is also a typical ploy used to discredit activist groups and the 9/11 truth movement is especially noteworthy for attempts to associate it with holocaust denial and antisemitism. In fact, this could be used as a deliberate strategy to discredit valid 9/11 research, evidence, and unanswered questions.

October 16, 2007

Cosmos and Truth Revolution Radio: October 15, 2007



Cosmos and Truth Revolution Radio: October 15, 2007

Cosmos interviews Jim Hoffman of 911 Research: Discussion of Disinformation, Disruption, and the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy

Mon., October 15, 2007: Playlists: M3U | RAM (Individual MP3: Click Here)

Transcript by Arabesque

[Edited for brevity and clarity]

[Cosmos opens with discussion of Every 11th Day of the Month Activism for October 11, 2007]

Cosmos: Our guest tonight is Jim Hoffman of the long running wtc7.net site… We met in early 2003 before he got the site up and he was showing people video clips of the towers demolition on his laptop at meetings and getting some fliers together… let me welcome… Jim Hoffman.

Jim Hoffman: Thank you for the introduction. I heard the reports of the ongoing [every 11th day of the month campaign], that’s great.

Cosmos: There’s growth all over the place… especially with this October 11 action… Why don’t we talk about how you got involved with 9/11 research… what you thought of the events? Were you questioning from the beginning?

Jim Hoffman: On the day of the attack I tuned in on TV… I just watched it with my mouth gaping, “what was this all about?” [I had] suspicions right away. “This is all too convenient—what are they going to do, attack Afghanistan? This whole next pretext for a war”… the attack on the Pentagon—the wing that had just undergone blast resistance… and they so quickly uncovered the trail of the… villains—the rental cars with the flight manuals…

Cosmos: That was one of the things that really kicked it in for me… [I thought] “this stinks”.

Jim Hoffman: …It wasn’t until the spring of 2003, that I went back and looked at the events again with fresh eyes and looked at the buildings coming down… there’s an article that came out in 2001… “Muslims suspend the laws of physics”. All of a sudden I just had this “aha” moment—it became glaringly obvious that the buildings were blown up. I couldn’t even see it the way I had previously assumed… [or continue going] along with the official explanation. I had seen the NOVA series, “Why the towers fell” and just bought it “hook, line, and sinker”… It changed everything for me, because from that point forward, I felt that I had to tell people about this… I started passing out fliers… within a few months I got the website going, by late 2003, I had 911research as part of wtc7.net, and 911review.com

Cosmos: You personally were the one who really got me looking at what happened at the Trade Center with those clips that you started collecting and were showing people…

Jim Hoffman: I noticed that if… I could actually get people to look at [footage of the WTC destruction]—most people would have the same basic understanding of it that I did… When you immediately see the explosiveness of those events, or I would just show them building 7 …because it’s such a fundamental thing to come to grips with—to change your view that… these towers collapsed [due to fire], or something entirely different—that the towers were blown up. Building 7, you can take that out of context and show it… people… say “that’s obviously controlled demolition.” …the Twin towers… are the heart of the whole event… the core of the psychological trauma. The thing that put people so deeply in shock to the point that they would accept anything that was explained to them. That’s certainly the effect it had on me—I was just in this uncritical state… even though I had suspicions about who was behind the attack. I didn’t even think rationally about how those buildings came down… until 2003.

Cosmos: It’s really amazing the [effect] that blowing those buildings up had on so many… and their ability to deal rationally with this topic about 9/11… I cannot look at that without saying, [it’s] being blown up right in front of our eyes. At the time, I just took it in—“Whoa—that’s not right”, but not really registering… it really is a hurdle for people. Although it seems so obvious for us.

Jim Hoffman: …Watching the NOVA documentary “Why the towers fell”, the floors collapse inside the building—that was all done with animation. They didn’t actually show any of the actual imagery of the event… One of the first things I started doing was just collecting all of the photos and videos I could find of it, and archiving them on the site, as a way of creating an archive of that evidence to look at. At least the visual evidence of that event survived—there’s a lot that can be determined just by that. Those visual records of that event are physical evidence.

Cosmos: …To this day, wtc7.net is one of the best sites for 9/11 research. It’s right up there, it’s always one of the first that I recommend to people who are looking into [9/11] for the first time. You’ve also done a lot of work in the study of disinformation and disruption. I’d really want to talk about [this]… a long overdue topic in the [9/11 truth movement]. Some of us have started giving it attention and have come under severe fire. I know that you’ve been attacked yourself for just being involved in critique of different work. Also, for the first time, I am going to be documenting for the first time on this show the full outrageous and ongoing attacks against myself and other activists from TruthAction.org that have been going on for over a month now. It’s pretty crazy. I’ve sort of avoided dealing with this on this show, because I generally just want to focus on getting people out there and getting active. But, in reality, if you’re involved in activism… disinformation and disruption is a key topic that needs to be addressed, because… if you have the potential of being successful, you become a target for disruption, and this is documented throughout history

Jim Hoffman: It’s unfortunate that you’ve been… experiencing all of these kinds of attacks… but it’s also an opportunity to kind of bear how this whole psyop [and the cover-up of 9/11] works. This can be extremely valuable. It’s a measure of your success [the 11th day of the month campaign], that you’re getting these kinds of attacks.

Cosmos: …[We’ve got to] turn it around and turn it into a positive thing. [Commercial break]

Cosmos: Jim’s also done a lot of work in the study of disinformation. What is that? …so many movements have been disrupted, some destroyed by disinformation campaigns. To think that you can be an activist or promote activism and not have to deal with this topic at all is very uninformed, wrong-headed, and quite frankly dangerous. If you focus on disinformation… all these people will say… “this is distracting, don’t talk about it”—I just want to read a quote from my colleague Arabesque, who is a brilliant researcher and great writer, very meticulous, and also in possession of what my friend Scott Nobel calls “superhuman civility”. He says: “The official story of 9/11 is disinformation, which means that the subject of disinformation is a vital and essential topic of 9/11 discussion. The opinion that disinformation is ‘extraordinarily low’ in this movement misses the mark by a long-shot since the very purpose of our movement is to expose the disinformation of the official story of 9/11. We cannot avoid the subject of disinformation.” I think Arabesque says it very well right there.

Hoffman: I think it’s useful to put it in a little broader context… if you look at the history of disruption in [other movements] in the past, the disinformation component isn’t as large or as important as it is in the case of 9/11… articles about COINTELPRO list… infiltration, psychological warfare, harassment through the legal system, extra-legal force and violence—those are the types of tactics that were more prominent in those operations. With 9/11… the facts of the attack are so important just disinformation… takes on a much bigger component the main [purpose of this disinformation] is to ridicule sceptics of the official story. It becomes less viable to do really nasty things like killing people… that would actually give us more credibility. That puts all the more emphasis on the necessity to muck things up by promoting false theories, bad information, muddying the waters—all kinds of disruption to create a hostile environment in which rational critique is not possibleshrouding the verifiable evidence, clear case for an inside job—a key component of the cover-up of 9/11.

Cosmos: I would suggest that what we’re facing in terms of disinformation and disruption is way more than other movements have faced… this is a very touchy topic, because if you are dealing with people who are intentionally disrupting, it makes it very difficult to deal with, because just by talking, addressing it, the potential is there to create more disruption. There’s some key things to focus on [to get around this problem]. The answer is not to ignore this, because then we’re screwed… if we’re willing to continue supporting people who engage in vicious attacks on others, people who pass on bad info repeatedly. The way to deal with this, is not to focus on individuals, but to focus on the form and content of what people are doing. To focus on civility. A key component of disinformation and disruption is ad-hominem attacks.

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: I hesitated to really pull everything out on this show… but I think it’s irresponsible to continue promoting activism without giving out good information about what’s going on in terms of disinformation and disruption. [Commercial break]

Cosmos: How do we deal with [disinformation and disruption]? Education, and activism. We can’t ignore the disruption attempts—some of the quite successful, some of them busted. Michael Wolsey has put together a compilation of information on disinformation and COINTELPRO… then there’s the aspect of dealing with the actual disruption as it’s happening in the movement. The key… is civility because [those] who are [trying to create disruption] spread a lot of ad-hominem attacks. Not discussing things civilly. Stirring things up and creating disruption. By example, we are going to address the attacks against a number of activists, namely myself, TruthAction activists, Michael Wolsey, Arabesque, Col. Jenny Sparks for the last month. Ongoing for the last month. We’re building a case here, we’re documenting it—I’m basically at the point where it’s so outrageous, it’s getting more and more vile… I announced three 9/11 truth resolutions:

1. We have a really solid case, we don’t need extraneous stuff

2. Keep a clean house: Dealing with disinformation, misinformation, and disruption. Avoid naming names.

3. Keep Kicking Ass.

This all started with Webster Tarpley, Bruce Marshall, and Craig Hill and the Kennebunkport Warning… this was spread everywhere. Then word started coming in that [Cindy Sheehan and others] claimed that they didn’t sign it. They weren’t making a big deal of it. The response to this [by the Kennebunkport Warning Promoters] was to heap abuse on these anti-war activists: “wretched individuals”, “appalling liars”. I took issue on this and reported [what happened] on my show, and I didn’t even mention names. I was disgusted that someone representing themselves as a leader of 9/11 truth [said they were building bridges] with anti-war war leaders, and then [heaped] abuse on them. I really took great offense… so I brought it up on the show. What happened next was the onslaught of attacks—non-stop, to this day by Webster Tarpley and his associates, just getting more and more ridiculous as time goes by. It started off with him calling us COINTELPRO agents. This is slander, this is a lie. Then he said we founded by the Ford Foundation. Another lie. He commissioned a very professional kind of political cartoon with FBI [marching orders and FORD Foundation] money in our hands. He took the opportunity of the 6th anniversary speech in New York, [to include] a slide show… we have an entire list of accusations [by them] and it’s really quite hilarious if you read through it. But the ridiculousness of it doesn’t take away from the viciousness. It’s wrong, it needs to stop. [Commercial break]

Cosmos: Slander, Libel and Harrassment… you try and summarize but it’s just so huge, so ridiculous and ongoing to this day: “COINTELPRO”, “Funded by the Ford Foundation”, “Chechen Rebel”, “Jenny Sparks is a Man”, Political Cartoons, Hit Pieces, vile and vicious hate mail from Tarpley’s protégé warning me not to look into this. It’s degenerated into this new kind of psy-op, using YouTube to attack activists. This reeks of a professional operation because there’s about 50-100 of these videos with Webster Tarpley and Eric May… trashing us, saying that we’re Al Qaeda cell members. It’s time to speak up about this, and get some kind of response from our movement.

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. 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.

Cosmos: When people who are respected just stand by when people are viciously attacked, we saw this happening with Steven Jones all through the year. When people just stand by… with the veneer of non-partisanship.

Hoffman: Or make excuses for it: “I don’t want to get involved, it’s just a personal conflict”, completely smearing over the details of it. The effect that it’s having is to alienate other groups that should be our allies with the most vicious stuff. It’s completely irresponsible not to address it—worse, to make excuses, or even worse, to continue to promote the people involved in this. So-called Captain May… do a little googling on him and you’ll find all these associations to anti-Semitism.

Cosmos: Captain May has been involved in slandering and stalking activists from truthaction.org, [saying:] “we are trained COINTELPRO professionals”. Five days later… videos start showing up attacking us on a bunch of blogs, with encouragement to [harass] us. I [question why] these supposedly prominent people in the truth movement who wish to remain silent and sweep this under the rug, and watch these kinds of attacks go on. If you want to see a truth movement be strong and continue to grow, you won’t let that happen. I’ve given my whole life to [9/11 truth action]. It’s hard enough to do this without being viciously attacked, slandered, and harassed. If you want to see people to continue to give everything they got to exposing 9/11 truth, then you won’t stand by and watch as they are attacked.

Hoffman: And you’ll 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.

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: At the same time, you [get] attacked for merely reporting on things, for critique—as if that’s the same thing as an ad-hominem attack. You see people who are making the worst kind of ad-hominems, conflating ad-hominem with critique. That’s a key tactic to shut-up the kind of critique we need to really hone our case. [Pretending that] there’s no such thing as critique, to disagree or to discuss something—[claiming criticism without ad-hominem is] all attack—it’s ridiculous.

Cosmos: The key is civility. That is our weapon in dealing with disruption because that is the heart of disruptive efforts.

Hoffman: We’ve just scratched the surface. It’s so interesting to see this happening to you—it’s just, I’ve seen this, almost like a whole different era. Obviously you’re doing good work to be getting this kind of flack.

Cosmos: We’re just going to take it as encouragement. [End of Show]

See also: The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy: A Study in Divisive Accusations, Insults, and Ad-Hominem Attacks

October 15, 2007

Cosmos on his radio show: Truth Action Radio: September 3, 2007



Cosmos on his radio show: Truth Revolution Radio: September 3, 2007
The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy
Transcript by Arabesque

Mon., September 3, 2007: Playlists: M3U RAM (Individual MP3: Click Here)
Michael Wolsey of Visibility911.com is the guest and we discuss his work as a truth activist and radio host, with a special focus on his series on cointelpro. We are also joined by investigative activist Col. Jenny Sparks and discuss a bit of the controversy behind The Kennebunkport Warning. Bruce Marshall joins the show during the last segment to discuss his role in promoting The Warning.

9/11 truth activist Cosmos of Truth Action gives his take on the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy:

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… [later] ...it really boils down to are we going to act civilly, or are we going to be divisive.
Later in the Radio show, Bruce Marshall, a collector of signatures for the Kennebunkport warning gives his side of the story. In his comments, Bruce Marshall curiously evades the central complaint of divisiveness as articulated by Cosmos above. Instead, he emphasizes the warning, and erupts in anger when questioned about the divisive behavior of those involved in the controversy:
Cosmos: Bruce Marshal is on the line, he’s actually the person who apparently responsible for gathering signatures—including the disputed signatures on this document. I guess you’ve been following… [the controversy]?

Bruce Marshall: Not really. Frankly, not really. I think this is a big problem getting caught into the minutia of it. There’s a problem, and the problem has been going on for quite a long period of time. Actually, what this is, is a healing process. What we’re starting to see is what we need to deal with the crisis. The crisis is the fact that the world is about to go to thermal nuclear war potentially. The crisis is that we can have another 9/11 attack. The crisis is that we can have a gulf of Tonkin incident.

Cosmos: I don’t think anyone involved with this has any dispute with that whatsoever. I haven’t seen any people contradicting the need to warn people, this is quite likely to happen—that’s not really the issue. The issue is the disputed signatures and also the treatment towards the people in the peace movement who are disputing signing this document, which is very divisive.

Bruce Marshall: There’s a lot of divisiveness.

Cosmos: And calling people “wretched individuals” and “appalling liars” is not… bridge-building behavior. That’s really a key problem here because one thing we really do want to do is unite the peace movement and the truth movement—which are really the same movement at heart. So that kind of behavior is really troubling and I’m feeling--

Bruce Marshall: [interrupting] and who’s doing that? Who’s doing that? [inaudible]

Cosmos: I feel at a very basic level that at the very least, these woman deserve an apology for the way that they’ve been treated by the promoters of this warning… none of these women deserve to be called wretched individuals or appalling liars.

Bruce Marshall: Well, where were they being called wretched individuals?

Cosmos: That’s actually a Webster Tarpley quote. That’s from an email that he sent around last Thursday [August 30, 2007] morning.

Bruce Marshall: Oh, this is interesting. I think what we need to do here is look at this from the perspective that you asked me to come on the call, so, let me… put this all in perspective. This wouldn’t have happened in certain ways if wasn’t for Cindy Sheehan. It was… us, myself, who recognized that Cindy Sheehan called to meet in Philadelphia on July 4th, was historically important for the country. What we were trying to do, was to bring together the various movements in this country, to work on this. So, to say this is where we’re going, this is what we’re trying to bring forth. I put this into the perspective of… who signed what, and why they said they didn’t sign what they signed, and this type of thing… is, you know, all this hullabaloo is, I mean it’s acrid, it’s an aspect of the human condition. And there’s… [Interrupted by Cosmos]

Cosmos: Right, but when Cindy and the rest disputed signing, and they specifically said that they signed something, but that they recalled it being a different document. Now, whatever you think about that, and whatever your take on that was, you were the one collecting the signatures, they offered their refutation of signature in a very courteous way, and then offered their support to the 9/11 truth movement. And then they said they “wished the authors of this warning well… in getting the truth about 9/11—that they were very courteous. So all the hatred, and all the animosity is coming from the people who promoted this document, and it really doesn’t add up… a lot of us in the movement really don’t want people who are claiming to represent us treating leaders from the anti-war movement in such a way.

Bruce Marshall: [In an angry voice:] You are talking to me in very disrespectful way. Do you know what you’re doing? [Microphone cut off]

Cosmos: Webster Tarpley and Craig Hill have talked to Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the signers in a disrespectful way. And we don’t really appreciate it. Now did you personally obtain a signature from Cynthia McKinney on this warning?

Bruce Marshall: [In an angry voice and shouting] You are doing something that is—is despicable here! Now you listen up! [inaudible—Microphone cut off]

Cosmos: I think you need to calm down Bruce. I really don’t need you shouting on here. And I think this is indicative of… where the people promoting this… are coming from. Can you calm down a bit?

Michael Wolsey: Cosmos, I think this is very indicative of the way that these people have been treated, and I’m just appalled at this sort of behavior from someone who admitted that he hasn’t kept up on this.

Cosmos: This is him saying they want to build peace and… build bridges. If you’re going to go about and say that you’re building bridges with people, then… why all of the sudden heap abuse on them…

Michael Wolsey: I would suggest it doesn’t matter why they want their names off. The caller suggested that they need to know why—no they don’t need to know why. The simple matter of the fact is that the promoters of this document—if somebody was… disputing the signatures, they should have just immediately taken it off and [moved on]. My question would be: why didn’t they do that?

Cosmos: That’s a good question. Bruce do you have an answer for that?

Bruce Marshall: […] You don’t know the story, Sir. People have—you don’t have the story kid. […]

Cosmos: [We’re running low on time.] Do you think there’s any chance to heal this with these women, maybe offer an apology for the language that’s been hurled at them, publicly?

Bruce Marshall: [Yelling] Oh! Why don’t you talk about the language that’s been hurled at Janine! Calling her a liar, calling me a liar!

Cosmos: I haven’t seen any of that.

Bruce Marshal: [angry voice:] You, you, you aren’t understanding the facts, that’s why you interrupt me when I tell you about what things are! I really shouldn’t have come on this show, because I understand that there’s, there’s—it’s being negative towards healing. You are actually acting in a divisive way! Ok

Cosmos: Really?

Bruce Marshall: [angry voice:] You don’t understand what’s going on. The door is open towards healing, towards creating leadership here. The people that signed something—the people who signed something. [Microphone cut off with cross-talk]

Cosmos: Well if you’d like to take a breather and continue this later, we can do that. […] I don’t know what to make of all this, maybe if these guys want to calm down, and join us at a later time, we can try to resolve this a bit more.

[End]

See also: The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy: A Study in Divisive Accusations, Insults, and Ad-Hominem Attacks

October 14, 2007

Webster Tarpley: Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, Michael Wolsey, and Truthaction are “disinfo”



Webster Tarpley: Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, Michael Wolsey, and Truthaction are “disinfo”

By Arabesque

A comprehensive summary of the ongoing disinformation, ad-hominem attacks, threats, and accusations by supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning against Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activists, and investigators of the controversy

updated: October 23, 2007

The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy has it all.

Before we begin, let me provide some background. What promoted the deluge of inflammatory comments below? Cosmos said the following on his show Truth Revolution Radio:

One thing about this that really disturbed me… [about the Kennebunkport warning controversy] 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.

This was my main objection as well. What was the response to this complaint?

Webster Tarpley supplied an ad-hominem filled commentary on the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy on his radio show:

[False Statements/Disinformation highlighted in Red. Ad-hominem commentary and Personal Attacks highlighted in Purple or HTML Links.]

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. And let's tell you who they are.
First of all, you have to look at the site called truthaction.org. As far as I can see about two-thirds of the site appears to be devoted to slanders and vilification of the Kennebunkport Warning. This shows what one can only call the typical style of the counter-gang. In other words it takes elements from lots of people's work including my own. They talk about truth squads, they have a candidate tracker, they talk about a general strike, they take things from Ron Paul, they take things from We Are Change, but then they mix in a huge dose of anonymous slander, vilification, denigration, calumny, libel, and defamation. The leading poison pen seems to be an individual called Cosmos. Now this I think is extremely objectionable. Here is somebody who will not tell you his real name but he demands the right to be a poison pen. Anonymous slanders are his stock and trade. He wants to slander you and vilify you from the shadows, spread disinformation, distortions. These are the venom-mongers, the merchants of pus who like to operate from behind the scenes. These are the wreckers and saboteurs, and of course the question is posed: Is this COINTELPRO? Is this the conform of the FBI counter-gang? Those are interesting questions. I can't answer them, but they are very interesting.

Then we have somebody else called Colonel Jenny Sparks in quotation marks. She shows herself as a cartoon figure prancing in an abbreviated costume before the Union Jack. Another poison pen slanderer, another wrecker and saboteur. The only questions we have are, is this COINTELPRO, is this the current style of the FBI counter-gang?

So here we have Cosmos who shows you he looks like he's trying to imitate Che Guavara or a member of the Sons of David baseball team. He's hiding behind a huge beard, looks like the Italian aviators in A Night at the Opera. He's got this army fatigue cap pulled down over his eyes so you can't see him, he might as well be anonymous. Jenny Sparks [is] completely anonymous.

Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9/11. He appears of course in shades, he's got some cool shades on, he doesn’t want you to see him. Remember visibility911.com is not the same as 911visibility.org. 911visibility.org is a reputable website; you have Janice Matthews and many others who work there. This is visibility911.com with Michael Wolsey.


Another person who has been active in these slander operations is somebody called Arabesque. Arabesque has a blog devoted to discussing 9/11 news research and disinformation, and I think the disinformation department is absolutely admirable. He seems to have all the disinformation you could want. He's pushing it and peddling it on this sleazy, smelly website. So thats arabesque911.blogspot.com.

The interesting thing about these people is that they all appear in the year 2006, 2007. What's their track record in the 9/11 truth movement? Do they have any? Do they have contributions? Have they done anything to build the movement? Who are they? They come out of nowhere and then they set themselves up as leaders. Cosmos in particular starts saying that it's time for everybody to get active on the eleventh on every month. Well we don't need him to tell us this and to take credit for it.

I'm afraid also Jon Gold is somebody who has been in the movement, puts his blog at Arabesque and he has joined in the slanders.


These people have practiced a constructive fraud on public opinion. I think they operate with multiple pseudonyms. We do not know who they are. Colonel Jenny Sparks for all we know may be a cigar-chomping FBI agent or a branch of Shin Bet somewhere in the Occupied Territories or a subcommittee of the National Security Council. We simply do not know.

Colonel Jenny Sparks appears with no face. Arabesque has no face. Cosmos has got the cap pulled down over his eyes. Michael Wolsey's got his shades on. These are the poison pens and the slander snipers and these are the people you have to watch out for.

And I think it is monstrous that a lot of people who have been in the 9/11 movement and have seen COINTELPRO in action in past years are now willing to go down this road once again with disinformation, distortion and the constant mania of people who insist on operating under false names, anonymous slanderers. It's a despicable way to wage political activity.
” [transcript by CV]

A Similar commentary by Webster Tarpley took place soon after on the anniversary of 9/11. This power point presentation included comparing Cosmos to photos of Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev, and Arabesque to the deceased and former director of the FBI, Edgar Hoover. Watch these attacks against the Kennebunkport investigators below [1:32:59 to 1:36:24]. A moderator at truthmove.org reported about the conference “[Tarpley] just called cosmos, jenny sparks, arabesque, michael wolsey, and john gold all cointelpro. he even put pictures of some of these people up on the screen.” Jon Gold echoed my thoughts exactly when he replied, “Oh well, at least I'm in good company.”

Webster Tarpley - September 11, 2007 in New York

"This next part is nothing that I wanted to do, but I have to include it because it's been forced on me. Who's against the Kennebunkport Warning? Who really doesn't like it? Who's out there slandering it—slandering the document? How about slandering me? I'm used to it. We have five experts in slander, with no track record in this movement—people who came out of nowhere, in 2006-2007. No achievements. No track record. No credibility. They come into the movement and say "alright, we're the bosses now; we're going to tell you what to do." And then they affect the [inaudible]. We've counted about five or six people as far as we know have written about two thirds of all the slanders. And this raises this unavoidable question—I know it's distasteful, I know it's [the 9/11] anniversary, but the situation is so extreme, that having a chance to talk to people about this, I'm afraid I have to do it. There's one called truthaction.org… and they have all the stuff—it's sounds like… Ron Paul. It sounds like We Are Change. It sounds like me! It sounds like truth squads, truth candidates, general strike—but, when you look at this site, about three quarters of it is devoted to slandering the Kennebunkport Warning. And for some reason, me. Me! [pointing to himself with both hands]

Here's the guy: Cosmos. This is a poison pen. Here is a guy who wants to slander you from behind a cover name. He won't tell you who he is. And look at him, where is his face? He's got that hat on. You can't see who he is, or he says: "I'm not going to show you my face and I'm not going to show you my name and I'm going to slander you." The guy is a weapon [?]. Is this COINTELPRO? Is this a [FBI] counter-gang? Thanks to my counter-intelligence, we've now figured out who's behind it. You may remember Shamil Basayev, the leader of the Chechen terrorists. The Russians think to have killed him in 2006—just about the time that Cosmos came forward. [photo shown]

Isn't it amazing? But he's not the only one.


Colonel Jenny Sparks. We're supposed to have a debate with Colonel Jenny Sparks, who has no face, and no name! Another one of the poison pen brigade. Thanks our counterintelligence, we know who Jenny Sparks is. [photo shown] She has a certain mystique.

How about Michael Wolsey? Anybody know him? He appears here… You think you know him—visibility 9/11. Notice the sunglasses.
He wants to show you his face behind the shades. He takes the shades off, here's who he is. [Picture from X-men movie with character "Multiple Man" shown] Multiple Man. Because he has a thousand—multiple pseudonyms. He calls himself 911visibility or visibility 911? Do you think you're getting 911visibility—that's a reputable site. It has Janice Matthews and a lot of people from 911truth.org. But visibility911 is a completely different kettle of fish.

Then we have Arabesque. Another slanderer. He's got a whole blog—nothing but slander. We've been able to find his true identity. [photo shown]

Jon Gold, writes for Arabesque.
" [Transcript by Arabesque]

[See a response to these accusations here, here, and here. Jon Gold has never posted on my site, but I have linked to blogs by him. We do not oppose the warning (in fact I offered my research to support it), we oppose the divisive conduct of the Kennebunkport Warning promoters, which is continued by Webster Tarpley in his attacks against us. We are not "CoIntelPro", and we ask that Tarpley supply actual evidence to support this serious accusation (of which, we know he has none). Being opposed to divisive language does not count as evidence of being a "CoIntelPro agent" or "cigar chomping FBI agent".]

When you attack someone instead of answering their argument or complaint it is called an ad-hominem. The above passages have to be some of the most colorfully vitriolic examples seen so far in the 9/11 truth movement. From my paper, 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples:

The third level of disinformation occurs by abusing the man (AD HOMINEM) in attacking the author or the editor of a work on irrelevant or misleading grounds that have little or nothing to do with the position the author or editor represents.” Jim Fetzer

One of the telltale signs of disinformation is that the people promoting it engage in personal attacks.” Jim Hoffman

“Another important aspect of how disinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement functions is through the use of attack and vitriol. While all types of people—professionals, academics and average people—can resort to nasty or inappropriate personal attacks when defending or promoting theories which conflict, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been packed with such attacks.” Victoria Ashley

These statements by Tarpley were just the beginning of the onslaught. Earlier, Webster’s publisher, John Leonard entered the fray calling 911blogger users “sock puppetshere, here, and here for being voted down and then posted a “call for unity” from of all places, Tarpley’s book. It was voted down unmercifully by 911blogger users.

Tarpley’s comments after this controversy began included:

Reality is that the signers signed – the irrefutable, photographic, courtroom quality documentary proof is posted on the internet. In the light of this overwhelming evidence, it is understandable that most of the signers are reluctant to issue a flat denial that they ever signed. Rather, their denials are oblique and ambiguous doubletalk.

The only way you can get out of this is to prove that you are mentally defective, and nobody has tried that, so far.

The role of foundations in funding the peace movement and some of its leading activists is an immense factor of impotence and corruption.

And you cannot be an antiwar leader and be an agnostic about this, claiming you simply do not know or that you do not understand the concept of false flag. If you choose that cop-out, what kind of a peace leader are you?

"From the beginning, supporters of Kennebunkport have argued that the four signers who claimed they did not sign, and then deplorably covered their retreat with a barrage of wild charges of forgery, most probably did so because they feared that their foundation funding might be terminated."

"Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashion about what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond these wretched individuals.[sic]"

Later, Tarpley started throwing accusations at the Kennebunkport warning investigators, and even made a professional-quality cartoon accusing them of working for the Ford Foundation:

"From now on, as a rule of thumb, it will be fair to say that those seeking to tear down the Philadelphia and Kennebunkport convergence clearly represent the running dogs of the Ford Foundation, operating as stooges, pawns, foot soldiers and water carriers for the infamous Berlet, and deserving to be exposed as such. Whether they are conscious, paid agents or merely dupes can be determined later on."

"Thanks to Berlet, all foundation operatives in the domestic cointelpro apparatus now know who their immediate enemy is. Everyone who is foundation funded knows where their bread is buttered, and they are expected to earn their pay by reacting accordingly. Watch them as they come forward. Persons of good will can also use the Berlet slander as a reliable moral guide to what is actually going on here, and join the growing and distinguished list of supporters of the Kennebunkport warning at actindependent.org."

"We come now to the segment of counter intelligence and this of course our dear friends over at the Berlet Brigade, the Ford Foundation Berlet Brigade. These are the four individuals--psudomyms that you know--or don't know, the nameless, faceless ones....of course, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, Arabesque and uh Micheal Wolsley. Some of them have a third of a face, some of them have three quarters of a face, most have no names... They have essentially been wrapped up into a neat package with their leader Chip Berlet as they march under the banner of the Ford Foundation--by an artist who portrayed them in a very ironic lampoon that you can see up at actindependent.org or at the Rense.com, um, website."

"Captain [Eric May]... do you have any idea now who [Jenny Sparks] really is? And where she's located? And how is it possible to do this destabilization and wrecking simply through the internet, at long range? Does she depend on dupes? Or backward elements? How does she do it?"

"As for the scurrilous “Cosmos,” “Colonel Jenny Sparks,” “Arabesque,” and Michael Wolsey, to say nothing of their comrade in arms, the Ford Foundation’s favorite Chip Berlet, they have no interest in doing anything to stop the new 9/11 and the threatened war with Iran. Their sole focus is to harass and sabotage those who are undertaking action in that regard – and remarkably effective action it has turned out to be, despite the exertions of the wreckers."

[this was sent by email and is believed to have been written by Webster Tarpley]

"Dear friends - 9/11 blogger has been purchased by a mysterious millionaire from Texas, who for all we know could be Karl Rove or Neil Bush.

[911blogger] is being run by ['George Washington'], who has chosen to support the Ford Foundation's Chip Berlet and his allies (Arabesque, Cosmos, Wolsey, and "Col. Jenny Sparks", all unknown people who joned [sic] 9/11 in 2006 primarily) in a series of attacks on the Kennebunkport Warning and its supporters. Wolsey has also attacked Thierry Meyssan, Gerhard Wisnewski, and myself. [...] reprehensor, who had been my contact there, is a person of ability and character, but he has been driven out by the new management. 911blogger can no longer be relied upon for anything. We are trying to do an intelligence job to figure out who the new owner is. We also need to know more about this ['George Washington']. Our cartoon sums up the situation -- enclosed. We need to find other channels for publicity -- this one is useless for the moment."

US Senate Candidate Leland Lehrman, an associate of Webeter Tarpley writes:

"My first reaction to the controversy was to hope for reconciliation, but there appears to be no way to make this happen. Mr. Tarpley is adamant that the arrival of Chip Berlet of the Ford Foundation is evidence of a major counterorganizing initiative and he is decisive that even those who cannot be proven agents must be warned of the consequences of their alliance, intentional or otherwise."

[False statements/Disinformation labeled in red. Ad-hominem/irrelevant personal commentary highlighted in purple. See a response to these accusations here, here, and here.

911 blogger has not been "purchased" by anyone, and certainly not by Karl Rove. We request/invite Webster Tarpley to supply actual evidence to support the claim that we work for the Ford Foundation and are affiliated with Chip Berlet. Being opposed to divisive language of Webster Tarpley and his associates does not constitute evidence that we are being funded by the Ford Foundation.

Unlike Tarpley, we have accumulated "massive evidence" to support our assertion that the Kennebunkport Warning promoters are being divisive and abusive.]

Tarpley’s fellow LaRouche associate and signer of the Kennebunkport Warning, Craig Hill piled on with gusto:

"The hoax lies in the lies of the signers"

"The stupefying behavior of so-called peace activists who seem bent on making sure disaster strikes again"

"Dahlia Wasafi is the original instigator of the campaign to destroy the messenger and the message of the Kennebunkport Warning"

"Dahlia is worse even than a liar, she is either part of the war effort she claims she denounces or an idiot out of her depth."

"Unlike Dahlia and Cindy, Bruce doesn't play gotcha or switcheroo with those he thought were natural allies."

"They are the ones of dubious integrity."

"Cindy's got a lot of 'splainin to do"

"The hoax here consists of a rally, essentially, by some of the signers to protect Dahlia's family by amazingly, clumsily, arrogantly and stupidly destroying the credibility of a patriot who is simply trying to do what they have not the guts or brains to do on their own."

"The bitterly dubious integrity of Cindy Sheehan or her crapulous judgment"

“PLEASE REPRODUCE THE SHEET WITH CINDY AND DAHLIA'S SIGNATURES ALONG WITH THE ONLY EXPLANATION I CAN COME UP FOR THE UNDERSTANDABLE REASONS DAHLIA LIED AND CINDY WENT ALONG WITH IT.”

I'm beginning to think more and more that the peace movement is very much more infiltrated, and controlled even by elements of the perpetrators, coming from the perpetrators than even the 9-11 movement... And the reason I say that is that it seems now on 911blogger, which is supposedly THE authority on the internet such as it is for all things 9-11, has taken the side of these people who I call the Dahliar 4. In other words, the Dah-Liar 4. D-A-H-L-I-A-R Just put an R at the end of the name Dahlia.

Craig Hill also wrote the following to Kennebunkport Warning investigator Jenny Sparks via email:

"Unlike Web, who detects the smell of scum from the other side of the computer, i do not for a minute believe the cartoon known as Col Jenny Sparks draws a paycheck from the govt outside welfare. He (not a Jenny, tho probably a wannabe) is too young and too ignorant of too much and too many in the movement, by his own admission. His cutesypie writing style is immaturely directed to impress his little audience of equally insignificant fellow underachieving pseudo-9/11aware couch potato typists. He is likely a mischevious youngish man (lives at home with mom, bangs away all day at a computer in the basement) with way too much malicious time on his hands to do anything worthwhile with his little miserable bug-like existence. Thinks it's cool to say "squire", "guv", "sunbeam" (wow!) and (oh, that iconoclastic striking out at Authority!) "Webbie", which his little circle of even younger giggling apolitical boy/girl buds who look up to him think is so de rigeur. Thinks he reveals his worldy wise knowledge of inner circle talk to intro his gigglers to Nico as if Web didn't know him (yawn), "warning" Web that Nico means trouble, oooooh, "watch out!", you heard it first from the Drudge [his hero] of the pseudo-9/11 movement, the Cartoon Col. As if any of his drivel is important beyond his pathetic little ego, his laughable little cutesypie insistence to "Apologize!" to the Dahliar 4, who have done nothing to further anything ever in the 9/11 movement for which they have nothing but contempt for having lied about signing the sheet they knew they signed, not giving a flying fuck for the lives of the Iranians who could jolly well melt like a grilled cheese sandwich under the coming onslaught of the buscists [sic?] Jenny and they embraced by not denouncing the attack before the event, which is all Bruce and Web were interested in forestalling. But no, little boy Jeniffer proves Dahlia is the idiot she really is for accepting his apology for the entire 9/11 movement he has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with, at any point, ever, including before his pathetic bug-like existence down in mommy's basement." [False statements marked in red. 'Jenny Sparks' is indeed a woman]

As if this was not enough evidence of divisive behavior, Dan Abrahamson, a Tarpley associate and supporter/signer of the Kennebunkport Warning wrote:

"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."

"This picture encapsulates everything that's wrong with the typical 9-11 conspiracy lemmings and losers, who are completely useless, and in fact, counterproductive to progress. It's a self-contained pyramid scheme psy-op now, with ignorant followers resorting to pathetic street recruiting like Hari Krishnas, attempting to wake up people to "the truth" (which is about as deep as their idiotic bumper sticker slogans). If anything, these 911 cultists are lost souls who deserve pity."

"(Look at these poor saps... the sign blaming it all on the "neocons" is the biggest joke of all, not only unsupported by the facts, but also foolishly pitting the 911 issue in the left-right paradigm. As if these problems will stop after Cheney leaves office? This photo is yet more ammunition exposing how brainwashed the 911 conspiranoid cultists have become. There. I said it... And why do 911Blogger and similarly demoralizing, heavily censored cult hangouts promote these kinds of photos? Let us pity these three men, who probably think they are practicing "activism" with their public cult recruiting)." [False statements/Disinformation marked in red]

Elsewhere, Mr. Abrahamson had a "FFlagNews Brand New Quiz Game: 'Guess that 911 cultist!'" In these videos, he continued his personal attacks against Cosmos, (a Kennebunkport Warning investigator), Alex Jones, and Steven Jones.

Kevin Barrett, yet another supporter/signer of the Kennebunkport Warning wrote:

Forgery is a serious crime, and falsely accusing someone of forgery is an even more serious crime. Yes, I think Webster Tarpley made a terrible mistake by accusing his misguided, ignorant, badly mistaken opponents on this issue of being infiltrators. Webster should apologize forthwith. But Tarpley’s ill-considered accusation is nothing next to the mendacious fraud accusations put forth by the four regretful signatories. It is they, far more than Tarpley, who must apologize quickly if they want to retain any credibility. Frankly, if I were one of the Warning’s organizers, I would be strongly considering legal action. The possibility of cointelpro involvement in this affair is not to be dismissed. It is hard to imagine how anyone could be so stupidly unethical as to make transparently false accusations of forgery without some form of pressure having been applied. That pressure could come from threats; or, more likely, from “nice antiwar friends” from the foundation-funded pseudo-left... the kind of people professional 9/11 coverup agent Chip Berlet hangs out with. Cindi Sheehan and her foundation-funded fake-peace-movement “friends” are easy targets for this kind of manipulation by professional psy-oppers. Wake up, Cindi! Anyone who takes foundation money is on the CIA payroll. The foundation-funded “left” magazines, radio shows, and organizations are CIA propaganda outlets. It really IS that simple. [comment by Arabesque: We oppose divisive language like "fake-peace movement 'friends'" and "stupidly unethical" as seen prolifically in this post--not the warning. See what Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists actually said.]
Barrett was less dramatic on his radio show, 9/11 and Empire with his guest Leeland Lehrman on October 2, 2007:

I think [Webster Tarpley] went too far and made a serious blunder when he sarcastically these four people on the other side of him on this Kennebunkport issue and suggested that they were infiltrators in the 9/11 truth movement. I know a couple of those people who clearly are not infiltrators, they were just somewhat mistaken in how they dealt with the Kennebunkport issue. I think Webster was so upset, and I can understand why about this whole thing that he made this mistake. I have urged him to apologize to these people, but he’s sticking to his guns.”

Leeland Lehrman replied:

Tarpley was making the point to me that in going into the emotionality of the various reasons why these people might be doing what they’re doing turns the whole 9/11 operation into an internal soap-opera activity which is from a disinformation or political standpoint ideal for our opponents in this struggle, because it makes it impossible for us to actually use our understanding to actively campaign against their current agenda” [Misleading Statements marked in red. Read this post for yourself and ask yourself why Mr. Tarpley and his associates have spent so much of their energy attacking us?]

These comments are attributed to emails by Captain Eric May, another supporter of the Kennebunkport Warning:

"I believe that... the more prolific of our antagonists in the Kennebunkport Warning matter were professional agitators. To take one example, 'Colonel Jenny Sparks' was harassing both the Oregon Truth Alliance and Portland Nuclear Inquest (which I lead) in the weeks before the Kennebunkport Warning. In typical agitator fashion, she claimed to do so in order to defend the 911 Truth Movement and debunk our "alarmism" for alerting Portland to the dangers the nuclear simulation, Operation Noble Resolve. She and cohorts infiltrated both group lists and hurled monkey wrenches in every direction before getting the boot. As a lasting memorial of the encounter, they then set up their own user group, made up of a mixed set of a dozen agitators and useful idiots, largely dedicated to damning me and browbeating [other local activists]. Every once in awhile I read it for amusement."

"I wasn't referring to Cosmos in my comments about the disinformation efforts being conducted at 9/11Blogger. Candidly, I can't remember any particular comments by Cosmos. As for the equally pseudonymic Jenny Sparks and Arabesque, it's easier for me to have an informed opinion about them. Were I not busier with more important things, I think I could come up with a pretty good article identifying those who are either actual COINTELPRO or merely useful idiots being manipulated by COINTELPRO, and perhaps even grouped them according to the cells within which they work. In some cases over the last four years, my associates and I have even been able to trice [sic] COINTELPRO agents back to their FBI handlers." [False statements/disinformation marked in red]

Eric May accused those of investigating the Kennebunkport Warning of being "trained COINTELPRO professionals" and "military assets" in an interview with Webster Tarpley:

"Uh, with Jenny Sparks I think you're at both ends--I think she uses professional cointelpro cooperation and then useful idiots where ever they can be found... They're... trained cointelpro professionals--agitprop activists--and their job is not to produce positive analysis. If you can look far and near for any article of any consequence, by any of these people and you'll not find it. But what you'll find is a constant rat-a-tat of criticism against anyone else's work. And that is because their mission is not to develop the area of 911 analyses, or the next 911 prediction--it's to impede 911 analysis and prediction. So, these are classic disinformation tacticsyou have to realize there are organized cointelpro cells… I've run into half a dozen of them. Anything from military professionals who went by rank, although would not sign their work, to, you know, cute synonyms like Arabesque or Jenny Sparks who would not sign their work… they usually coalesce and target specific points. You have to see them as military assets."

[False statements/disinformation marked in red. Ad-hominem commentary in purple. See a response to these accusations here, here, and here. Again, I supported the Kennebunkport warning with my own research. My main objection is the divisive language and accusations of the Kennebunkport Warning promoters. See also: Praise for Arabesque: 9/11 Truth. See also: Jenny Sparks' response to some of these false claims.]

Jim Fetzer, a signer and supporter of the Kennebunkport Warning commented on Webster Tarpley's radio show:

Now, I think that those of 911Blogger need to wake up and smell the roses--the movement has been massively infiltrated, and they maybe unable to sort things out. One of the reasons being that is a closely closed operation on Blogger. They operate with a kind of group think, Webster, where anyone who veers outside of a certain narrowly defined channel of research is assaulted savagely, verbally on the list. [False statements marked in red]

In response to questions about the Kennebunkport Warning, LaRouche associate and (you guessed it), signer of the warning Bruce Marshall blew up in anger at Cosmos on his radio show:

Bruce Marshall: There’s a lot of divisiveness.

Cosmos: And calling people “wretched individuals” and “appalling liars” is not… bridge-building behavior...

Bruce Marshall: [interrupting] and who’s doing that? Who’s doing that? [inaudible]

Cosmos: I feel... these woman deserve an apology...

Bruce Marshall: Well, where were they being called wretched individuals?

Cosmos: That’s actually a Webster Tarpley quote.

Bruce Marshall: Oh, this is interesting... [later] I put this into the perspective of… who signed what, and why they said they didn’t sign what they signed, and this type of thing… is, you know, all this hullabaloo is, I mean it’s acrid, it’s an aspect of the human condition...

Cosmos: ...they said they “wished the authors of this warning well… they were very courteous. So all the hatred, and all the animosity is coming from the people who promoted this document, and it really doesn’t add up… a lot of us in the movement really don’t want people who are claiming to represent us treating leaders from the anti-war movement in such a way.

Bruce Marshall: [In an angry voice:] You are talking to me in very disrespectful way. Do you know what you’re doing? [...] You are doing something that is—is despicable here! Now you listen up! [...] You don’t know the story, Sir. People have—you don’t have the story kid. […]

Cosmos: Do you think there’s any chance to heal this with these women, maybe offer an apology for the language that’s been hurled at them, publicly?

Bruce Marshall: [Yelling] Oh! Why don’t you talk about the language that’s been hurled at Janine! Calling her a liar, calling me a liar!

Cosmos: I haven’t seen any of that.

Bruce Marshal: [angry voice:] You, you, you aren’t understanding the facts, that’s why you interrupt me when I tell you about what things are! I really shouldn’t have come on this show, because I understand that there’s, there’s—it’s being negative towards healing. You are actually acting in a divisive way! Ok

Cosmos: Really?

Bruce Marshall: [angry voice:] You don’t understand what’s going on!

Cosmos: […] I don’t know what to make of all this, maybe if these guys want to calm down, and join us at a later time, we can try to resolve this a bit more.
Yet another LaRouche associate, Laurie Dobson speculated that the anti-war signers were afraid:

“Based on emails I have received, it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid, but I believe that they should not defame those who asked them to sign the petition.”

“After seeing this petition/statement posted on the internet, a few of the signers became afraid that they would be 'wearing orange jumpsuits' because they signed the petition. I think they are being told that they will be targeted if they don't recant. This is unfortunate and unnecessary.”

What evidence did she offer to support these statements? Nothing. Not only did they not present any evidence, Webster Tarpley admitted in his 9/11 power-point presentation that he was only guessing that the anti-war activists were afraid:

"They began to receive pressure, they were intimidated—I'm only guessing, I know how these things works. Intimidated. Threatened."
In fact, Cindy Sheehan has not backed down from her previous comments about 9/11, nor on her previous statement on Alex Jones' radio show that there is a distinct chance that a false flag attack could occur.

It is apparent that Mr. Tarpley is also "guessing" that Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, and Wolsey are "COINTELPRO", and "work for the Ford Foundation" since he has provided no real evidence to support these claims. Is it a coincidence or conspiracy that most of the attacks against the anti-war activists are all coming from LaRouche associates?

As for the investigators of the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy, Cosmos of Truthaction has been getting vicious “hate mail” from a signer of the warning for covering this controversy, warning him not to investigate it. An anonymous YouTube poster began posting videos of Webster Tarpley and Captain May attacking the Kennebunkport Warning investigators along with text messages accusing us of belonging to "Al Qaeda". Annonymous Blogs, Videos, and emails (quite possibily but not proven to be individuals associated with the Kennebunkport warning) posted objectionable content including threats of violence against 9/11 truth activists and those investigating the controversy surrounding the Kennebunkport Warning.

All of these statements are documented and many are linked to in their original sources. Others are emails, and a few of them are attributed statements.

If the point of CoIntelPro is to divide and weaken activist groups, then why are all of the signers affiliated with LaRouche and their Kennebunkport Warning supporters trying to do their dirty work by engaging in copious amounts of divisive behavior? When almost all of the Kennebunkport Warning supporters engage in vitriolic name calling, and prolific accusations (mostly without evidence), the possibility emerges that this could be a coordinated campaign of disruption. For discussion of Agent Provocateurs and their tactics, read my essay 9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries.

Here is a summary of the many accusations by Webster Tarpley and his associates:
[provably disinformation/false marked in red]

  • 911Blogger.com has been purchased by a millionaire and could be run by Karl Rove
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley "oppose the Kennebunkport Warning"; they "have no interest in doing anything to stop the new 9/11 and the threatened war with Iran." [see Arabesque's research, Cosmos' radio show, and Michael Wolsey's article on the controversy]
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are COINTELPRO, "organized COINTELPRO cells","trained COINTELPRO professionals"
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are stooges, pawns, foot soldiers, or dupes
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley work for the Ford Foundation
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley work for Chip Berlet
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are slanders, poison pens, saboteurs, and wreckers
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are part of an "FBI Counter Gang"
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are "military assets"
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are "professional agitators"
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley could be "working under multiple pseudonyms"
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley have not produced "any article of any consequence"
  • 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are members of "Al Qaeda"
  • 9/11 activist Jenny Sparks is a "He (not a Jenny, [though] probably a wannabe)", a "little boy"
  • 9/11 activist Comos is a "Chechen terrorist"
  • 9/11 activist Jenny Sparks could be a "cigar chomping FBI agent"
  • 9/11 activist Jenny Sparks could "work for a branch of Shin Bet somewhere in the Occupied Territories or a subcommittee of the National Security Council"
  • Cindy Sheehan and four other anti-war activists are "wretched individuals" and "appalling liars"--they joined together (in a conspiracy) to deny signing a document (after signing it) because they are scared of "losing their foundation funding" and "authoritarian forces".
I believe that the Kennebunkport Warning promoters should explain why they are acting in this divisive manner. It is not our responsibility to provide a motive for their actions.

9/11 whistle-blower Kevin Ryan observed:

People asked how this could have happened. Then accusations were made, culminating in some ludicrous claims that some of our best leaders were disinformation agents for the government. How can we tell? Because, for example, one wears sunglasses and another has a beard. Brilliant... As usual, we’ll see how these things develop, but we don’t really need any more warnings. We’ll do what we can to communicate the vital need for 9/11 truth and reach out to others in our country who work for peace. Until then, my thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident. Hang in there and don’t give up hope.
Here is how respected 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman characterized the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy on Cosmos' radio show:

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 SheehanWhen 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. 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 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.

See also:

The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy: A Study in Divisive Accusations, Insults, and Ad-Hominem Attacks

The Truthaction Investigation

9-11 Synthetic Error: The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley