Arabesque's False Unity Crusade - When it comes to ID'ing COINTELPRO, is Arabesque the New John Albanese?

gretavo's picture


Arabesque is currently riding high as an authority on what is disinformation and COINTELPRO in the 9/11 Truth Movement.  Arguments over this kind of claim to authority is one of the things that made RT persona-non-grata at 911blogger, so its resurfacing with a veneer of sober objectivity begs for some good-ol' fashioned "disunifying" critique.

First let's get one thing straight--we should not consider anyone implicitly trustworthy.  The best liars succeed because they appear to enough people to be absolutely upstanding, honest, and fair.  Were it not so, liars would never get away with their lies.  Arabesque himself acknowledges this problem by referring to "obvious disinfo" and that which is "deeper."  This cuts both ways of course--it's another way of saying what I just said in fact.  Good liars aren't obvious liars! 

There is no magic formula, provided by Arabesque or anyone including myself, to determining who is honest and who is not--what is true and what is not.  Accordingly, like life itself, so much of which involves making such determinations, deciding who and what to believe is not a science but an art.  Generally speaking there are many ways in which a liar or a lie can be sussed out, and more often than not it involves observation over a period of time with an eye to (among other things) spotting inconsistencies or contradictions.  In the case of 9/11 itself there are many such examples and we need not discuss them among truthers--we know what they are.  In the case of what passes for the truth movement it's a whole other ballgame--the factys are not as well-documented or obvious.  Most of us do not know one another personally, nor do we have much of a history to draw from to make a convincing evaluation of most people identifying as truthers.

As Arabesque points out (as many of us have for a long time) the most obvious liars are easy to spot and not really worth arguing about.  No-planes at the WTC, etc.  Most people agree that those people should be shunned.  The more interesting cases of course are those where there is controversy, and why not use Jon Gold as an example in this case. 

Few would claim that Jon Gold is obviously a disinfo agent.  Many people are taken in by his very studied portrayal of himself (the word overwrought comes to mind) as a deeply compassionate man who works tirelessly on behalf of "the victims' families" and the first responders.  I put the families in quotes because I am convinced that among those claiming to be related to 9/11 victims are people who are lying for one reason or another.  Some people (like Jon Gold) would seize on that suspicion of mine to call me a heartless sack of shit, disinfo, uncaring--whatever.  Similarly, some people have the same reaction when I question the sincerity of Jon Gold himself.  This pretense to sanctity on behalf of certain individuals, groups, or events is to me a fairly reliable red flag.  Truth is inherently immune from debunking, so why would anyone who knows that they are right feel threatened by questions, as opposed to relishing the opportunity to establish (as many times as necessary) the validity of one's position?  This is why to this day we repreat so often the words set down by Shakespeare centuries ago--Methinks they doth protest too much!  So much wisdom in so few words...

The problem with Jon Gold's shtick is that a person who sincerely feels as strongly as Jon claims to about the dignity of humanity would not be in the habit of referring to people who disagree with him in the terms that he does, or in the habit of sending psychologically manipulative private messages to people who he feels are not toeing his line stridently enough.  A contradiction wrapped in inconsistencies.  But lest Jon feel any more picked on, the point can be made with reference to someone like Amy Goodman or Bill Maher.  So sanctimonious when it comes to accusing conservatives of being blind to logic or human suffering, and yet so obviously blind themselves--deliberately or not depending on their individual ratios of intelligence to honesty. 

Contradictions like these beg for resolution and resolving them decisively is crucial to navigating one's way through a forest of deceit to find the sincere trees the forest is meant to conceal.  This I think we can all agree on--we are in the middle of a forest of deceit--and anything that we can all agree on is something worth remembering always and using as a compass of sorts.

Naturally I agree with Arabesque that COINTELPRO and disinfo are both real issues that must be acknowledged and dealt with.  But I would go a step further and point out the danger of simplifying the practice of determining who or what is and isn't.  Arabesque's thesis centers around the premise that unity is good for the movement, that divisiveness is sown to derail it, and that the disinfo crowd does the sowing.  I won't disagree, but I would say that we would be foolish to put unity above truth.  Isn't it George Bush himself who asked us--nay told us--to be united against the terrorists?  Does 9/11 Truth really need the same kind of rhetoric?  Are the democrats and republicans in any way overtly united?  No!  They mainatin their power over people's minds precisely because they appear to be divided, though we know that on a level hidden from the masses they are in fact a single unified front, and that this unity sometimes shows despite the underlying need to appear as distinct (I need not mention examples of issues on which their unity is overt, I hope... I bet a pack of cigarettes you know what I'm talking about!)

But since we're peeling onions here, let's get to a deeper layer, one that like the dems and repubs unity is something that Arabesque only dances around but hints at quite blatantly in a way I will show shortly.  One of the things that Arabesque mentions is "divisive issues".  No-planes at the WTC used to be one of those, as were directed energy weapons, or DEW.  Since these were pretty absurd claims they ceased to be divisive except in the rhetoric of folks like Killtown who claimed he was discriminated against because of his advocacy of video-fakery (the no-planes offshoot that was selected in favor of hologram planes which was very quickly discovered to be incapable of mustering any converts whatsoever.)

The slightly more plausible "divisive issue" that Arabesque mentions overtly is "no 757 at the Pentagon".  To many people, myself included, this should not be a divisive issue.  Absent any conclusive evidence of a 757 having crashed into the Pentagon, evidence that should exist in spades given the video surveillance cameras all over the Pentagon, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that a 757 did crash there (note that we need not even discuss whether the 757 in question was flight 77 or a dummy 757 until it is proved that ANY 757 crashed there.)  It is not proof of a 757 crashing into the Pentagon to ask those who do not support the assertion where then did all the passengers go, but this does not stop defenders of that part of the OCT from trying.  Since they can't prove that flight 77 even took off that day it's like me asking where the pink elephant I left at your house is, since you claim you don't have it there.

The subtext is clear--let's leave the Pentagon out of our discussions, or if we must discuss it, let's avoid making anyone look like a fool for supporting the OCT on that score.  Let's pretend that it does not raise suspicion when people seem so willing to take on faith one aspect of the OCT but not others.  I could, though Arabesque did not, mention another similar issue which is the alleged role of Pakistan and the ISI in 9/11.  This issue is considered divisive though it seems that only people like Jon Gold really put much stock in it--like in the case of the Pentagon, the most minimal proof has not been provided to take the allegations seriously--the proof offered is in fact so suspect that again, it is hard to discuss the issue without making it obvious that the person (usually Jon Gold) pushing that angle is being dishonest about finding the evidence convincing, and that the person seems fixated on a theory as substance-free as a hologram plane--LIHOP.

When Arabesque talks about "divisive issues", in other words, he seems to be referring to issues that should not be divisive.  Why is he trying to make us think that those are divisive issues then?  Certainly he doesn't think that people will stop discussing them, does he?  Surely he can't believe that confronted with indisputable evidence that we were lied to about 9/11 in such a monumental way that the existence of disagreement on certain aspects is going to cripple the movement with disunity, or does he?  Could it be that Arabesque is in fact framing a wholly different point altogether?  Methinks maybe!

THE most divisive issue in all of Truthland is of course whether or not Israel (or its partisans) was involved.  In true mainstream media form however Arabesque does not directly refer to the 800 lb. gorilla we all know is there.  He does something only slightly less subtle than omitting mention of the question of Zionist agency in 9/11 (which itslef would say a lot, but the reality is even worse!)

What Arabesque is actually saying in his piece on disinfo, though again he only dances around it so as to make his point without being seen to make it (or so he thinks) is that not only should we not risk disunity by discussing Israel's role in 9/11, but that we should not even DREAM of going near... can you hear it rumbling down the way?  The you-know-what-O-caust!

That's right.  Cleverly "hidden" in footnote 8, the source for his definition of "ad hominem" is !  Nizkor is of course a site about debating tactics.  Er, no, it's a dictionary site.  Oh wait, that's right!  The Nizkor Project is:


Dedicated to 12 million Holocaust victims who suffered and died
at the hands of
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime

Gotcha.  For the definition of an ad hominem argument, Arabesque just happens to find the perfect source in a site defending the official holocaust narrative.

Huh? WTF?

At this point I don't want to get into why this is absurd, only to suggest that as far as authorities on disinfo and dishonesty go, Arabesque has just joined John Albanese in the Pantheon of Self-Referential Experts.  It's holiest of holy shrines lies (literally) at the center of the magical Forest of Deception.  Grab your axes and blue oxen, folks--t's time to start clear-cutting.

And finally, a word to Arabesque--

kiss my divisive ass,

you friggin' shill!