Nice meta-summary of "conspiranoia" as social control, implications for 911 activists

[metamars]

Full thread title:

Nice meta-summary of "conspiranoia" as a means of social control, and implications for 911 street activists

From:

Towards a Theory of Conspiracy Theories


This essay doesn't support the author's conclusions with examples, or develop arguments all that much, beyond what we can glean from reading online summary articles regarding 911/left gatekeepers. However, it's worth a read, as it takes an analytical viewpoint that, it seems to me, can challenge the more intelligent reader who is, nevertheless, constrained in his/her thinking by ambient frames imposed by the societal structure which (coincidence or not?) protects the ruling class so well. Especially, I suppose, it precludes reaction against 911 as a government-assisted conspiracy, as there is no detailed discussion of 911, or any other specific conspiracy.

IOW, you might look at this essay as having special value, since it effectively abstracts out the basic arguments presented by analysts of 911/left gatekeepers, and thus doesn't get caught up in the details of specific conspiracies that are being obscured by the intelligentsia. It could be argued that this is particularly valueable when approaching somebody who has a reflexive aversion to any arguments questioning the official 911 story.

And that suggests another approach, by 911 street activist, to attacking the pseudo-reality which serves the ruling class. And that is: Print out a copy of this essay, and distribute it to political science and sociology students, as they walk into the doors of their classes. Don't write about 911 - just put a link to your group's 911 website on the bottom.

Even better, I think, would be printing out Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "9/11 "Conspiracies" and the Defactualisation of Analysis", and stapling this underneath "Towards a Theory of Conspiracy Theories". Ahmed's lucid analysis is also partly a "meta" one - he is examining defects in the very process of reasoning about 9/11, which - wouldn't you know it! - lead away from a conspiratorial conclusion.


Some excerpts:

Quote:

More important than a detailed analysis of a single essay would be a sustained theoretical critique of the role of "conspiracy theory" in delegitimizing information contrary to the interests and consensus reality of the elite. None of the coverage of Sunstein's journal article offered this broader view. I would like to do so, by posting a revised version of something I posted here a few years back which, unfortunately, remains as timely as ever.
.
.
On the other hand, the disavowal of conspiranoia has also become an integral part of the conventional wisdom itself, a social technology of control that establishes the boundaries of "responsible discourse" by reflecting elite consensus on the fundamental nature of social reality, in accordance with the elite's own class interests. This makes for an incredibly effective means of establishing ruling class hegemony by controlling dissent, foreclosing alternatives, engineering support, and transmuting the interests of the ruling class into that of the nation as a whole.
.
.

In fact, one is apt to be labeled a conspiracy theorist for merely suggesting that there is a ruling class in this country that seeks to maintain hegemony, to say nothing of the idea that the ruling class might occasionally use conspiratorial methods. Rather than conspiracy theory, most media and intellectual gatekeepers prefer to view elite behavior through the lens of "somnambulist theory," "coincidence theory", "incompetence theory", or "spontaneity theory". No amount of intellectual gymnastics is spared to avoid arriving at the conclusion that the rich and powerful, like the rest of us, might possibly act in support of their own perceived best interests. This is, of course, in spite of a voluminous sociological literature on the power elite and "elite deviance" and a plethora of laws on the books against criminal conspiracy.
.
.

Instead of the usual characterization of conspiracy theory as a branch of group psychopathology, "troubled minds looking for order in chaotic and rapidly changing times" as the academic literature so uniformly spins it, conspiranoia might be better and more accurately thought of as a populist fusion of life writing, historiography, and political science which provides explanatory narratives that void the epistemic warrant of the elite consensus on history, social reality, and the "conventional wisdom." This is a major development in the long tradition of popular resistance to state power and economic oligarchy, not of the right vs. left, but of the bottom vs. the top.

(emphasis mine)

As a resurgent populism is showing signs of gaining strength, and threatening the Democratic / Republican elite control of government, it may well be the case that the government is going to increase it's demonisation of "conspiracy theories" and conspiracy theorists, as a means to try and dampen populism. I kind of doubt it, as "conspiracy theories" are what I call "high strangeness", and thus I expect that populist political movements, themselves, will not openly make a big deal about 911 or any other "conspiracy theory."

[carlitos]

What?

[vinniem]

Just as I thought^^^^^

Metamars, you might want to take some of the big words out of your post if you want your thread to go anywhere.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by metamars

As a resurgent populism is showing signs of gaining strength, and threatening the Democratic / Republican elite control of government,

No. No it is not. It is fading into the background of insignificance as it should. in over 9 years no physical evidence whatsoever of this vast 9/11 conspiracy. You lost your fantasy. Face it. Your hollow claims of a vast omnipotent world power silencing and thwarting you at every turn is a fantasy. You are so deep into the conspiradroid rabbit hole that you cannot rescue yourself and no one else even cares or notices you are "missing". Keep chugging the kool aide Metamars.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

This description of such irrational, unscientific conspiracy theory is then applied to September 11. All those who argue the legitimacy of investigating whether the Bush administration may have deliberately facilitated the 9/11 attacks are lumped into one contrived category of conspiracy theorists, and subsequently dismissed for proposing absurd uninteresting ideas without foundation. This is achieved essentially by listing a large number of conspiracy theories - many of which are arguably untenable, a few of which are plausible - and then simply discarding them all as intrinsically absurd without even attempting to address the matter with a factual analysis:
Here are some of the leading 9-11 conspiracy theories:

1. The World Trade Center was destroyed not by planes but by explosives.

2. The planes were not hijacked at all, but commandeered by remote control by NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command).

3. The planes were hijacked, but the hijackers were double-crossed and the planes were taken over by remote control by NORAD.

4. The hijackers were actually working for the U.S. government.

5. U.S. intelligence knew about the plot, but intentionally did nothing so as to cause massive deaths that would mobilize public support for a war on terrorism that would benefit the government.

6. The plot was actually organized by the Mossad.

7. The Mossad knew about the plot, but did nothing, hoping that the massive deaths would mobilize public support for Israelís war on the Palestinians.

8. Tower 2 of the World Trade Center was hit by a missile.

9. There was a joint plot by rogue elements in the CIA, the Mossad, other U.S. government agencies, Mobil (being investigated in a criminal case, all of the evidence against whom was in FBI offices in the World Trade Center), and Russian organized crime (which profited especially from Afghan heroin with which the Taliban was interfering).

We should be forthright here. None of the above strike us as remotely interesting much less plausible.

Sorry truthers, the author seems to agree that MIHOP theories are utterly absurd. Maybe the so-called Truth Movement would be taken more seriously if it jettisoned all that crap?

But unfortunately for you guys, this is the meat of your movement, and it's not the government or the debunkers fault.

In other words clean up your act, truthers.

[carlitos]

There is 'resurgent populism' all the time, and as far as "threatening" the Democrat / Republican parties, I don't remember us electing Huey Long, George Wallace or Ross Perot.

metamars, when you are older, I suspect that you will have more perspective, and laugh at these claims of grand conspiracies. You seem smart enough that you will figure it out eventually. The "pseudo-reality which serves the ruling class" (sic) is just reality. Your psychobabble is trying to apply the 'ambient frame' of ... I don't know, probably too much pot-smoking-induced "deep thought" to it, resulting in a skewed view of reality. Get out of the philosophy department and study some history and logic.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by vinniem

Just as I thought^^^^^

Metamars, you might want to take some of the big words out of your post if you want your thread to go anywhere.

Sorry, but the author of the article vehemently disagrees with MIHOP theories. That includes WTC 7 conspiracy theories.

Try again.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

No. No it is not. It is fading into the background of insignificance as it should. in over 9 years no physical evidence whatsoever of this vast 9/11 conspiracy. You lost your fantasy. Face it. Your hollow claims of a vast omnipotent world power silencing and thwarting you at every turn is a fantasy. You are so deep into the conspiradroid rabbit hole that you cannot rescue yourself and no one else even cares or notices you are "missing". Keep chugging the kool aide Metamars.

Your comment appears to have nothing to do with your quote of me. Muddled thinking, much? Another stellar JREF intellect at work?

As to the quote, itself, consider the following, from Self-identified Independents surge in poll:

Quote:

The percentage of adults identifying as independents has swelled to match its highest point in 70 years, according to the biannual values survey from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, while the percentage of self-identified Republicans fell to its lowest mark in at least 25 years.

Thirty-nine percent of respondents self-identified as independents, compared with 33 percent who considered themselves Democrats and 22 percent who identified as Republicans.

So, what percentage of these self-identified independents would consider themselves populists? I don't know. But we can get a sense from the following:

'Tea party' polls better than GOP

Quote:

Should the “Tea Party” movement organize itself to run congressional candidates across the country, it would poll better than the Republican Party, according to a new survey by Rasmussen Reports.

In the national telephone poll of 1,000 likely voters released Monday, 23 percent said they preferred to vote for a candidate from the yet unformed “Tea Party” for Congress in 2010. The Republican Party trailed the non-existent political organization by 5 percentage points, getting the support of 18 percent of respondents.

Democratic candidates were preferred of 36 percent.

I most certainly consider the tea-bagger rank-and-file predominantly populist, even if Dick Armey, and whatever corporations paid for their buses, are not. The idea that people who try to manipulate mass movements must always succeed is, well, a conspiracy theory to which I don't subscribe.

So, I will guess that 5/8 is the lower bound for independents who are populists, and I'm very comfortable with guessing 3/4's. If you figure 5/8 of republican-leaners and 3/8 of Democratic-leaners, are populists, then you're talking about a majority of the voters.

I don't want to figure it out, 'exactly', but it looks like a third party which was strongly populist and could peel off 1/2 of populist Democratic - leaners and 1/2 of populist Republican leaners would smash the Democratic/Republican duopoly.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Sorry truthers, the author seems to agree that MIHOP theories are utterly absurd. Maybe the so-called Truth Movement would be taken more seriously if it jettisoned all that crap?

But unfortunately for you guys, this is the meat of your movement, and it's not the government or the debunkers fault.

In other words clean up your act, truthers.

I see. So in your inestimable opinion, Nafeez Ahmed, in an article critical of defactualised 'analysis', in a quote from a zmag article which includes

Quote:

We should be forthright here. None of the above strike us as remotely interesting much less plausible.

secretly agrees with the authors that he is criticizing, 100%. Is that it?

Methinks you didn't read very carefully, and confused Ahmed words with that of the people that he is quoting and criticizing.

Why don't you read it again, and this time look carefully at where he begins his quotes, and where he ends them?

You might also want to pay close attention to the word "vacuous" in the following:

Quote:

U.S. political scientist Professor Steven R. Shalom of William Paterson University in New Jersey, co-writing with Michael Albert, extends the same vacuous style of analysis in a lengthy ‘ZNet Instructional’ on conspiracy theories.[25]

[R.Mackey]

I've been asking for years to see one of these "sane" alternate 9/11 theories.

Never, ever got one.

The least insane I ever found had something to do with CIA control of opium in Afghanistan...

If there are no sane alternative theories, then there is no cloaking going on. It's pretty simple to figure out.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by metamars

I see. So in your inestimable opinion, Nafeez Ahmed, in an article critical of defactualised 'analysis', in a quote from a zmag article which includes

secretly agrees with the authors that he is criticizing, 100%. Is that it?

Methinks you didn't read very carefully, and confused Ahmed words with that of the people that he is quoting and criticizing.

Why don't you read it again, and this time look carefully at where he begins his quotes, and where he ends them?

You might also want to pay close attention to the word "vacuous" in the following:

Ah, my bad. So Ahmed considers controlled demolitions as plausible?

[carlitos]

Yes, metamars, the populist revolution that "smashes" the two party duopoly is just around the corner. Any day now, we will see it. The end (of the elites' rule) is nigh. The people are rising up against the 'elites.' Where have you heard these phrases before, and how did it work out? Study your history and logic, please.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Ah, my bad. So Ahmed considers controlled demolitions as plausible?

Actually, IIRC, he did initially, but subsequently had enough doubts about it that he stopped talking about it.

That's certainly not the case with other 911 conspiracy claims.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Yes, metamars, the populist revolution that "smashes" the two party duopoly is just around the corner. Any day now, we will see it. The end (of the elites' rule) is nigh. The people are rising up against the 'elites.' Where have you heard these phrases before, and how did it work out? Study your history and logic, please.

The Late Howard Zinn was heavily into "The Revolution To Overthrow the Elites" is right around the corner.
What is intresting that almost every revolution that seeks to overthrow the elites ends up ,even if sucessful, in just creating a new Elite.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by metamars

Actually, IIRC, he did initially, but subsequently had enough doubts about it that he stopped talking about it.

So I was right then. He agrees that those theories are horse manure.

And when he says that there hadn't been any detailed analysis of these claims (the MIHOP theories), he was lying, because if he changed his mind, this means he encountered such detailed information that disproved these theories.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by metamars

Your comment appears to have nothing to do with your quote of me. Muddled thinking, much? Another stellar JREF intellect at work?

As to the quote, itself, consider the following, from Self-identified Independents surge in poll:



So, what percentage of these self-identified independents would consider themselves populists? I don't know. But we can get a sense from the following:

'Tea party' polls better than GOP


I most certainly consider the tea-bagger rank-and-file predominantly populist, even if Dick Armey, and whatever corporations paid for their buses, are not. The idea that people who try to manipulate mass movements must always succeed is, well, a conspiracy theory to which I don't subscribe.

So, I will guess that 5/8 is the lower bound for independents who are populists, and I'm very comfortable with guessing 3/4's. If you figure 5/8 of republican-leaners and 3/8 of Democratic-leaners, are populists, then you're talking about a majority of the voters.

I don't want to figure it out, 'exactly', but it looks like a third party which was strongly populist and could peel off 1/2 of populist Democratic - leaners and 1/2 of populist Republican leaners would smash the Democratic/Republican duopoly.

Peculiar in that these "populist independents" don't seem to vote for independent candidates. All they do is cross party lines. Voting Either / or. Election results bear this out. You might want to get your head out of your ass with your own Muddled thinking and face reality. 911 truth is going nowhere.

[carlitos]

Wow, I almost corrected you (re: "late") and teh google tells me that Mr. Zinn passed away a few days ago. I was not a fan, but I wish his family well.

I recall an interview that he did with one of the conservative radio guys, and he was just eviscerated, and would never, ever concede that Western civilization was superior in any way to whatever society in the world - Indians, Communists, Al Qaeda, whatever. It breaks my heart that college kids are still reading "A People's History" and taking it at face value.

The anti "elite" stuff is just semantic crap, whether it's used against the "elite media," the "ruling elite," the bilderbergs, the Fed, whatever.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by vinniem

Just as I thought^^^^^

Metamars, you might want to take some of the big words out of your post if you want your thread to go anywhere.

Your studious contribution to the discussion is not noted.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Yes, metamars, the populist revolution that "smashes" the two party duopoly is just around the corner. Any day now, we will see it. The end (of the elites' rule) is nigh. The people are rising up against the 'elites.' Where have you heard these phrases before, and how did it work out?

No, I don't think it's "around the corner", if you consider "around the corner" to be less than 2 election cycles.

Because of roadblocks to ballot access by non-Dem and non-Repubs, it's seems like a much smarter strategy to form voting blocs. Sizeable enough voting blocs can dominate on either a Dem or Repub ballot. And if Dems or Repubs make this too hard*, the voting bloc can then go with a third party as a ballot-enabled vehicle. With this mindset, third parties are less essential.

However, there is an effort underfoot to meld Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and independents into a new third party. While forming such a new party is not completely antithetical to the party-hopping strategy I recommend, the adherents of such a third party may be averse to flipping their voting registration back and forth, since they are interested in "building a brand".

May the best strategy win.

Quote:

Study your history and logic, please.

Historical comparisons cast doubt on 3rd parties becoming dominant, unless there is a "realignment". There main effect is in forcing a dominant party in their direction, which then absorbs their members.

However, historical comparisons with a pre-internet era strike me as fundamentally flawed.


* The "pros" do, indeed, sabotage their own. See John Emerson's front-paged diaries at OpenLeft. Plus, insiders, who are not necessarily corporatists, sometimes rightly sabotage candidates who they suspect of being trojan horses who are being run just to split votes and create dissension.

This is a tricky subject, of which I don't know a whole heck of a lot. Suffice it to say that I have no problem with sabotaging corporatist agendas. What seems underhanded to a person depends on what their values are, since we're basically talking about fully legal maneuvering, either by corporatists, plutocracy-loving Mandarins, ideologues, or populists.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

So I was right then. He agrees that those theories are horse manure.

And when he says that there hadn't been any detailed analysis of these claims (the MIHOP theories), he was lying, because if he changed his mind, this means he encountered such detailed information that disproved these theories.

No, I'd say that you're basically wrong. AFAIK, Ahmed no longer talks about CD theories.

MIHOP theories need not involve CD.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by vinniem

Just as I thought^^^^^

Metamars, you might want to take some of the big words out of your post if you want your thread to go anywhere.

Originally Posted by carlitos

Your studious contribution to the discussion is not noted.

Vinnie loaned his slap chop to Metamars for his word salad

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by metamars

However, there is an effort underfoot to meld Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and independents into a new third party.

"Greens" & "Libertarians" forming a party together is almost as insane as the 9/11 CT's. Do you actually think about what you post?

[metamars]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Peculiar in that these "populist independents" don't seem to vote for independent candidates. All they do is cross party lines. Voting Either / or. Election results bear this out.

I don't see anything peculiar about this, at all. Historically, first past the post voting has made the prospect of a 3rd party becoming dominant, doubtful.* Thus, valid concerns about "wasting your vote". Secondly, Dems and Repubs have effectively collaborated to make fusion voting illegal in most states. Thirdly, campaign financing has become more and more expensive, which discourages primary challenges of incumbents even from within the ranks of party stalwarts. Finally, the populist surge I'm referring to is relatively recent (and probably still nowhere near it's potential). Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no teabagger movement 5 years ago. Society doesn't turn on a dime.

However, a) we may be in a period of realignment, where disgust with both Dem and Repub parties forces the issue and b) the internet makes historical framing doubtful.

Quote:

You might want to get your head out of your ass with your own Muddled thinking and face reality. 911 truth is going nowhere.

Whether or not the 911 Truth movement goes anywhere has, IMO, basically nothing to do with the success of a populist movement in the US, except that
1) 911 Truthers who do street activism might play a key role in getting the populist ball rolling, since 911 Truthers are remarkably non-partisan (ito D/R), hence no conflict on that score with independents.
2) a populist government would, presumably, also be a more honest one. A more honest government won't cover up for incompetents, and worse, within itself. Hence, after waiting their turn, they may indeed find a sympathetic ear within the government, to seek accountability.


IMO, the best thing to come out of the 911 Truth Movement is We Are Change, but even they will never make much of an impact unless they help spearhead a populist political movement and/or teach the populace about other (non-911) false flag treachery and media manipulation.

Because of the "high strangeness" aspect of 911, as I have said many times, before, the political activism should be kept at arms length from the "conspiracy thinking" - teaching activism.

* My understanding is that game theorists would consider this completely unremarkable.

[A W Smith]

Quote:

1) 911 Truthers who do street activism might play a key role in getting the populist ball rolling,

Honestly. In the past year. How many individual street activists have even bothered to show up? Give us a number from December 31, 08 to December 31, 09.

[carlitos]

1 - 911 Truthers doing street action result in said truthers being mocked. No populism will result. They self-defeat. Here is an example the insanity on parade. While they may be 'remarkably non-partisan,' they are also 'remarkably insane.' People tend to notice this before signing up for the revolution. Who signs up more populists - Wonder woman or spiderman?

2 - There will be no populist government. Your paradigm shift is a fantasy.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Honestly. In the past year. How many individual street activists have even bothered to show up? Give us a number from December 31, 08 to December 31, 09.

Good question. I don't know the answer, do you?

Actually, I'd be more interested in knowing how many street actions they participated in. If you have 100 people holding up signs saying the same thing, on 1 occasion, IMO, that is far less valuable than 10 people holding up signs saying the same thing on 10 occasions.

The fact is, at least where I live, there is virtually no street activism, of any kind, whatsoever, going on. There was one huge demonstration involving local politics, that actually took over a very busy street, for a while. That's about it.

I have another question, for you: Do you think We Are Changers would, at this time, stimulate more subsequent investigation on the part of passers-by, if they held up signs saying "Google FALSE FLAG ATTACK", instead of "Google WTC7" or "9-11 was an inside job"?

Actually, I think I'll start a new thread on dealing with just this question.

[metamars]

Carlitos (Post #25) :

See the second part of my answer in post #23. Also, make sure that you don't miss

Quote:

Because of the "high strangeness" aspect of 911, as I have said many times, before, the political activism should be kept at arms length from the "conspiracy thinking" - teaching activism.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by metamars

Do you think We Are Changers would, at this time, stimulate more subsequent investigation on the part of passers-by, if they held up signs saying "Google FALSE FLAG ATTACK", instead of "Google WTC7" or "9-11 was an inside job"?

Yea, because as we all know, a rational, unbiased, and thorough investigation of 911 always starts with "Google FALSE FLAG ATTACK", right?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

"Greens" & "Libertarians" forming a party together is almost as insane as the 9/11 CT's. Do you actually think about what you post?

I could actually see that happening,although you are right about it's total illogic.
Look at how many on the Left embraced Ron Paul in the early days of his campaign.
It's really ,with a lot of these people, more about being Anti Establishment then any specific political ideology.
You will be amazed how well left wing and right wing militants can get along under certain circumstances. They both hate the "Establishment" more then each other.
With CTers that is squared. Just look at Prison Planet, where left and right wing conpriacy wackjobs get along fine together..

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by metamars

I have another question, for you: Do you think We Are Changers would, at this time, stimulate more subsequent investigation on the part of passers-by, if they held up signs saying "Google FALSE FLAG ATTACK", instead of "Google WTC7" or "9-11 was an inside job"?

Actually, I think I'll start a new thread on dealing with just this question.

Don't even bother to start that thread. Read the google results yourself. 9/11 conspiracy doesn't even appear on the first page of results. What does that tell you? Oh I know!! Google is in on the vast conspiracy to silence 9/11 discussion!

[metamars]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Yea, because as we all know, a rational, unbiased, and thorough investigation of 911 always starts with "Google FALSE FLAG ATTACK", right?

Whatever the answer to your question is, what I am asking is, simply, "which will stimulate more subsequent investigation?"

I think the simplest way to think about this is to define "more subsequent investigation" as "what % of passers-by that see WAC signs, googled as a result of those signs, within the next 3 weeks?"

[carlitos]

Quote:

If you have 100 people holding up signs saying the same thing, on 1 occasion, IMO, that is far less valuable than 10 people holding up signs saying the same thing on 10 occasions.

Well, that's your opinion, and it's wrong (in my opinion ). If you think that 10 nutbars with signs times 10 occasions is more impactful than one 100-person demonstration, tell me why? At least the 100 nutbars have a (small) chance of being noticed. Do you know about PR? News? Advertising? The only advantage I see would be that they could talk 1:1 with potential recruits. Trust me when I tell you that, if you believe your 10 nutbars will persuade rational people of anything, the 'one on one' factor isn't going to work in your favor. I can't find the link to the 'truth' group in Canada that was trying to slip 9/11 into elevator conversations and such, but it was not impressive.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by carlitos

There is 'resurgent populism' all the time, and as far as "threatening" the Democrat / Republican parties, I don't remember us electing Huey Long, George Wallace or Ross Perot.

metamars, when you are older, I suspect that you will have more perspective, and laugh at these claims of grand conspiracies. You seem smart enough that you will figure it out eventually. The "pseudo-reality which serves the ruling class" (sic) is just reality. Your psychobabble is trying to apply the 'ambient frame' of ... I don't know, probably too much pot-smoking-induced "deep thought" to it, resulting in a skewed view of reality. Get out of the philosophy department and study some history and logic.

While i agree with your statement, i must take issue with the insinuation that smoking pot makes one a moron.

I smoke a lot of pot, not as much as i did a while ago, but still a decent amount per week, and at no point does this keep me from, or inhibit me from being skeptical.

Though , on the flip side it dosn't suddenly make me some philosophical genius, like some users would claim.

Pot makes one enjoy the things they enjoy, i can smoke a joint and watch some randi speaks, or a bowl and watch kent hovind make an ass out of himself. While your average truther would still be rocking his truther stuff.

Pot is not something that makes one more or less susceptible to wacky ideas. When it comes to being a skeptic, pot has little to no bearing.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by carlitos

What?

I think this is a Turing test. Like all others before it, it fails.

[funk de fino]

Nafeez Ahmed is an idiotic truther.

See this section for proof.

VII. The Irrationality of Attempts to Delegitimise 9/11 Inquiry

No better than any of the socks here. He just clouds his pieces with big words and mumbo jumbo.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by carlitos

Well, that's your opinion, and it's wrong (in my opinion ). If you think that 10 nutbars with signs times 10 occasions is more impactful than one 100-person demonstration, tell me why? At least the 100 nutbars have a (small) chance of being noticed. Do you know about PR? News? Advertising? The only advantage I see would be that they could talk 1:1 with potential recruits. Trust me when I tell you that, if you believe your 10 nutbars will persuade rational people of anything, the 'one on one' factor isn't going to work in your favor. I can't find the link to the 'truth' group in Canada that was trying to slip 9/11 into elevator conversations and such, but it was not impressive.

IIRC, the magic number for advertisers is 30. Present a message 30 times, and the effects will persist in the mind of the beholder, whether or not they have any conscious realization of how their thought processes have been effected.

Why else would McDonald's, which has a very simple menu that hardly ever changes, keep showing people pictures of an orange-haired clown? Somehow or other, if it weren't increasing their sales (by making "McDonald's" pop into people's minds when they get hungry), I doubt they would have spent the millions of dollars.

Repetition works in advertising of products. I see no reason why is won't work similarly in stimulating curiosity.

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by metamars

Repetition works in advertising of products. I see no reason why is won't work similarly in stimulating curiosity.

And pathetically small attendances at truther meetings and calls to arms stick in peoples minds also. People will associate them with fail and apathy.

[carlitos]

I addressed this on the poll thread. No, there is no 'magic number' because the quality of the message plays a big part. If travel at 60MPH past a billboard with really small writing 30 times, you still don't know what it says. Seeing 10 dudes in black hoodies 30 times just creeps most people out.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

"Greens" & "Libertarians" forming a party together is almost as insane as the 9/11 CT's. Do you actually think about what you post?

Gary Null, founder of the explosively growing progressiveradionetwork.com, has recently started adding shows, in back-to-back time slots, for Greens, Libertarians, independents, and Constitutionalists. He is trying to facilitate the formation of a new third party, but he apparently is not going into a lot of details, just yet. Obviously, complete purists would not join in coalitions. However, in politics, complete purists don't go far.

Greens and libertarians probably have more in common than Greens and mainstream republicans. See the frontpaged diary, on OpenLeft, called Talk Me Down from Contributing to Rand Paul's Campaign.

Forming a unified party where constituent groups as disparate as former Greens and former Libertarians are kept happy on a long-term basis may indeed be unworkable. On a short term basis, where the plutocracy + the Dem/Republican duopoly are widely recognized as the prime enemies to the middle-class, holding one's nose for 10-15 years, until the corrupted Congress critters are mostly gone, seems like a viable strategy. Especially if you consider the alternative to be, essentially, serfdom and corporatacracy.

How many people enthusiastically vote for Dems and Repubs, now? If they do, I would suggest that they are 'low-information voters'.....

Finally, note that there is a transpartisan political movement, where the program is to meld policy options from across the political spectrum, by taking seriously the best ideas, no matter from which ideology they may have originated from. See, e.g. Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life by Chickering and Turner. Chickering is the conservative, Turner is the former Nader's raider.

In a sense, what Null is trying to do is to extend such a transpartisan approach to direct electoral success. Chickering, Turner, and associates have no discernible electoral strategy. Not an effective way to proceed, when Democratic and Republican lawmakers are spending 1/4 to 1/3 of their time at fund-raisers, and lobbyist get to write legislation regarding the industry they represent. When a lawmakers ears are tuned to lobbyists sending the most campaign cash their way, will they even hear the transpartisan dudes if they lobby them, absent the boodle?

BTW, Null hosts Turner's radio program. Since you, presumably, think about what you post, why don't you give us your considered opinion as to whether or not this is a coincidence?

I say "no, it's not a coincidence". But a thinker, such as yourself, may have profounder insights to share.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by carlitos

There is 'resurgent populism' all the time, and as far as "threatening" the Democrat / Republican parties, I don't remember us electing Huey Long, George Wallace or Ross Perot.

metamars, when you are older, I suspect that you will have more perspective, and laugh at these claims of grand conspiracies. You seem smart enough that you will figure it out eventually. The "pseudo-reality which serves the ruling class" (sic) is just reality. Your psychobabble is trying to apply the 'ambient frame' of ... I don't know, probably too much pot-smoking-induced "deep thought" to it, resulting in a skewed view of reality. Get out of the philosophy department and study some history and logic.

It might be too late.

Quote:

Furthermore, it is clear that the facts pose a considerable challenge to the conventional wisdom about the 9/11 attacks, exposing glaring anomalies that need to be addressed.

The 911 truth movement is full of idiotic delusions from dolts; they are so stupid they see anomalies but it is due their willful ignorance.