Conspiracy Theories Drain Our Political Energy, Lead Nowhere

[lightningBugout]

Huffpo rejected my comment. Which said a very simple version of - believing your own govt. is capable of killing its citizens is not "comforting."

[MacCruiskeen]

Huffpo rejected my comment.

Well, they would, wouldn't they? You just bit the hand that feeds them.

She met oil millionaire Michael Huffington, a family friend of the Bushes, at a 1985 party hosted by Ann Getty in San Francisco. The couple were married in 1986 at a wedding paid for by Getty, who had declared that she needed to find Arianna a husband. They moved to Washington, D.C., when he was appointed to serve as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy. They later established residency in Santa Barbara, California, in order for him to run in 1992 as a Republican for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, which he won by a significant margin. He was a political conservative on most issues. Arianna campaigned for her husband, courting religious conservatives, arguing for smaller government and a reduction in welfare. In 1994 he narrowly lost the race for the U.S. Senate seat from California to incumbent Dianne Feinstein.[3] Arianna and Michael have two daughters: Christina and Isabella.

The couple divorced in 1997, and in 1998 Michael Huffington revealed that he was bisexual.[4] A 1999 magazine article claimed that Arianna Huffington "entered the marriage... with full knowledge of Michael Huffington's sexual interests in men".[5] The financial terms of their divorce agreement remain undisclosed, but Huffington gained most of her wealth from her husband.

[...]

Huffington's politics began changing in the late 1990s. A former "right winger", she moved noticeably to the left and now describes herself as a "progressive populist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianna_Huffington

You couldn't make this stuff up. This (along with the fact that it isn't funny) is the main thing that distinguishes it from The Addams Family.

A non-ridiculous Johann Hari might have written an article about 9/11 stating the plain truth, entitled "Huffington Post and DU Drain Our Political Energy, Lead Nowhere". But of course he'd have to have published that article elsewhere, on The Internet, of selectively evil repute. Because by then he'd have lost his job at the Guardian.

The dematerialised free spirit Arianna Huffington, by contrast, has no need to worry about losing her job, and now floats in a realm of pure impartial thought. You'd have to be a goddam Marxist or something to doubt that. Or, even worse, a "conspiracy theorist".

[mulebone]

Meanwhile, there is tons of overwhelming evidence that the Bush gang, the intelligence services and the 9/11 Commission all lied their asses off.

There's tons of overwhelming evidence that most, if not all, presidents and their intelligence services lie there asses off.

Please, don't tell me you're part of that wonderful group of folk who think Bush & co. invented any new business. Or that America made some huge course change with the Bush administration. If anything, their lack of regard for public opinion was refreshingly honest. Usually American leaders just hire proxy armies to do their dirty work and then they hide behind plausible denials. I mean, Kennedy is viewed as some sort of saint by the conspiracy crowd, yet the historical record doesn't back that up in the least. Kennedy wasn't much different than the rest of the lot. He was just cuter and more photogenic than the average presidential bear. Ask Cheddi Jagan of British Guiana about how honorable JFK was, publicly stating he had no interest in forcing "free enterprise" on anyone, while privately directing the CIA to oust the little socialist.

Libraries are full of books that list our own crimes in great detail, yet few citizens bother to read them. I know because I've plowed through a bunch of them.

So what?

In my experience, most people don't really give a fuck. They like being allied with "the winner," no matter what the cost of that alliance.

With the internet, we, as citizens, have the tools now to make this a real democracy. Theoretically, every citizen could now vote on each and every bill and law and amendment. But do you actually think the majority of folk would actually make informed choices if given that option. Do you honestly think they would plow through the tons of information they'd need to be informed? Or do you think they'd rather watch Celebrity Apprentice or maybe American Idol or the latest over-glorified kiddie game for adults like football? &, if lobbiests took their oodles of money directly to the people, offering to buy favorable votes with cold hard cash, do you think most folk would be too honorable and moral to accept?

Nobody forces folk to watch TV or obsess over Britney's mental health. They choose it. They could just as easily choose something else.

Conspiracy folk act as if the average American just needs to be informed and they will rise up and magically change things. It is an amazingly naive viewpoint for adults to have.

[Truth4Youth]

from the article:

To be fair to Zinn, he also states that "9/11 was used as an excuse by the Bush administration to go to war," but adds that what should be investigated is, "Why are there people in the world who want to blow up our buildings, who want to scare the American people, who want to do terrorist [things]," and who "are enraged by American foreign policy."

Sure sounds like he's embracing the government's blowback conspiracy theory.

You're not answering the question:

How does blowback negate the possibility of gov't involvement/complicity?

[MacCruiskeen]

Please, don't tell me you're part of that wonderful group of folk who think Bush & co. invented any new business.

It would be foolish to deny that they did. They invented the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts, to name but two, they invaded Iraq and they invaded Afghanistan. (Clinton, for instance, didn't. ) And that's just for starters.

There is a widespread strain of determinedly ahistorical leftiness that pretends everything is always the same as everything else: After all, it's all capitalism, isn't it? No difference between Jimmy Carter and Dick Cheney, then, right?

Wrong. Clearly there is a difference (and equally clearly, Carter was not a saint - this goes without saying, or at least it should).

I mean, Kennedy is viewed as some sort of saint by the conspiracy crowd

By all of them? (You know them, that crowd? Every member?)

In fact, no, mulebone. This "the conspiracy crowd" is, for once, an actual shining example of a straw man. There is no such thing as "the conspiracy crowd". You invented it so that you could beat it up.

As Jeff pointed out long ago in a post I can't locate, the undeniable fact that Kennedy was assassinated of course doesn't demonstrate that he was a saint. Nor does it demonstrate that he was in any way notably "liberal" or even vaguely left-wing. It merely suggests what we know for certain already: that he was deeply unpopular amongst certain very powerful and ruthless people even further to the right than he was.

When their interests are at stake, or are felt to be, Mafia bigshots frequently kill each other, or have each other killed. Nobody suggests that they only do it to saints. And some of those Mafia bigshots are de facto nastier than others

- There's much more to your post, but sorry, I have to cut this short right now. Late here.

Best,

MacC.

[daba64]

Oh wait, here's another zinger from the article...in case you already wanted to vomit:

John Kennedy really was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.

We know Oswald's motive. He was a lonely and troubled kid who, as Aaronovitch puts it, "defected to Russia in 1961 hoping to discover a better form of society - and discovered instead the Soviet Union." When he returned to America, he was bitter and angry, and determined that the only solution left was to tear down all forms of authority. He wanted to build an anarchistic society "without any centralized state whatsoever." All the endless theories that he couldn't have done it melt on examination. Take the nonsense of the "magic bullet": Aaronovitch talks the reader through how it has been shown by scientists studying the Zapruder footage to be not just possible but highly probable that Oswald's shots were responsible.

Bollocks!

The "magic bullet" was actually the nonsense of the Warren Commission! What kind of journalism is this where critical thinking is not allowed? Garbage.

Never gave much thought to this handy dandy gadget, until talk of Specter's party change reminded me that he was the genius behind the magic bullet theory.

Dang, maybe the manatee is more right than I realized....

[OP ED]

i am curious mulebone, though not as yet neccessarily disagreeing with you, what do you think is the cause of all this apathy among the servant class in the west?

[justdrew]

i am curious mulebone, though not as yet neccessarily disagreeing with you, what do you think is the cause of all this apathy among the servant class in the west?

the devil's advocate speaks: On one hand it's reinforced and favored by most available models - but primarily, isn't it default human nature? Power accrues to those who want it, to those who are willing to do what it takes to keep it, and who have the intellectual capacity to wisely exercise it. The hoi polloi just can't be bothered; if it weren't TV it'd be some other non-productive non-educational foolery. While I'm sure it's often difficult to feel much beyond contempt for the useless eaters and their endless "needs" (which must always be met by someone else) the hidden aristocracy of the capable does a remarkably decent job shepherding the herd, and keeps stampedes and pandemics and genocide to a minimum.

[mulebone]

Spoken like a true Bush hater Mac.

So, when the Catholics in Central America refer to the 80s as the decade America declared war on the Catholic Church, they're just cry-baby lefties, eh?

I suppose the folks in Argentina and Chile and El Salvador who probably laughed themselves senseless at the new left's frequent assertion during the Bush years that "America is heading for fascism," are cry baby lefties too?

I suppose the death squad general who ordered the rape and murder of those nuns in El Salvador, the general who has a nice wife and kiddies in Florida now, wasn't an example of America's fascism by proxy, eh?

What was Carter's reason for luring the Soviets into Afghanistan anyway? To give them their own Vietnam I think. Do you think Carter gave a tinker's tit for all the folk who'd die while giving the Soviet's their own Vietnam?

I suppose the myriad number of conspiracy prophecies about "the coming martial law" that mysteriously never materialized that I read for 7 odd years of Bush rule wasn't just the babbling of clueless lunatics who spend more time googling elite conspiracies than they do having sex?

I'm gathering that the only American crimes that interest you are the big ones that happen on your TV. Not too many videos of American planes illegally bombing po' folk in Central America for you to study late at night, eh? Oh well, you keep believing what you believe. I know you will anyway. Maybe the fairy of free and good America will sprinkle pixie dust on everything so that Bush and co. can be punished in a manner suitable to your tastes. Then we can return to our original course of spreading freedom truth and justice to the world.

What a hoot.

Have I talked to the Conspiracy crowd? No, but I've read a fair amount of it. Like you, they love the straw man defense. But humans are essentially mimics, aren't they? I think the phrase is "Monkey see, monkey do."

[MacCruiskeen]

Spoken like a true Bush hater Mac.

So, when the Catholics in Central America refer to the 80s as the decade America declared war on the Catholic Church, they're just cry-baby lefties, eh?

Oh please, mulebone. This, like your entire "response" is just plain daft, and nothing I've written gives you any excuse for inflicting it on me or on the board.

Half past midnight here. More than enough time wasted already.

[8bitagent]

To be fair to Zinn, he also states that "9/11 was used as an excuse by the Bush administration to go to war," but adds that what should be investigated is, "Why are there people in the world who want to blow up our buildings, who want to scare the American people, who want to do terrorist [things]," and who "are enraged by American foreign policy."

He says, "We should be concentrating on in what way is American foreign policy responsible for the terrorism that exist in the minds and hearts of so many people in the world and which in a small number of them results in violent acts."

GOD that "blowback" meme makes me want to wretch in a fetal position.
Im so damn sick of hearing these liberal intellectuals and college aged lefties talk about "blowback".

Well how can THEY EXPLAIN the FACT that the hijackers were financed by Bush's close top brass pals in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? And then the White House covered for them. Isnt that a crime of complicity?

"incompetence", "intelligence wrangling", "Blowback"...they can blow it out their ass.

Oh and to Noam Chomsky: 9/11 HAS CAUSED hundreds of thousands of dead Muslim civilians, over 5000 dead soldiers, probably a million plus psychologically damaged/wounded Muslim civilians, 3000 dead Americans, hundreds of dead first responders, the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq, US attacks on Somalia and Tribal Pakistan, and America's name being dragged through the mud

FUCK these "intellectuals" for thinking 9/11 is inconsequential...it IS the CORE NEXUS of all the evil thats been going on since by Western nations.

[American Dream]

I think that T4Y made an important point in that "Blowback" and "Inside Job" are by no means mutually exclusive...

[8bitagent]

If there's any serious evidence that those Nineteen Deathloving Superstudents actually dun 9/11, all on their own and without warning, then let's see it, at long last.

Which there is none. Even top FBI and law enforcement say they were actively investigating people and finance helping the hijackers at every step of the way, til higher ups shut down their investigations.

Is it already clear where Aaronovitch is taking his readers? Is it clear why he selects these four luminaries as typical "9/11 Truth Activists"? Is it clear why there's no mention of (say) Nafeez Ahmed, Nick Levis, Jon Gold, Michael Ruppert, the Jersey Girls, Cynthia McKinney, Jamey Hecht, Bryan Sacks, Mark Robinowitz or indeed Jeff Wells? Is it clear why neither Gore Vidal nor Lynn Margulis are allowed to get a look-in?

Allow me to add Paul Thompson, Kevin Fenton, and Peter Dale Scott(my three favorite 9/11 researchers out there)

Why is it ALL of the 9/11 debunking shows on BBC, History Channel, etc ALL focus on debunking the "physical anomalies"?

Why has NOONE tried to debunk the Saudi/Pakistani financing,
the foreknowledge, the FBI obstruction, Able Danger, etc?

At least National Geographic had the Ali Mohamed documentary

I love how he mentions the most cartoonish of "9/11 truth researchers"(the no planers, space beamers, disinfo folks)
This is the same tactic to compare questioning 9/11 to holocaust deniers.

[8bitagent]

Spoken like a true Bush hater Mac.

So, when the Catholics in Central America refer to the 80s as the decade America declared war on the Catholic Church, they're just cry-baby lefties, eh?

I suppose the folks in Argentina and Chile and El Salvador who probably laughed themselves senseless at the new left's frequent assertion during the Bush years that "America is heading for fascism," are cry baby lefties too?

I suppose the death squad general who ordered the rape and murder of those nuns in El Salvador, the general who has a nice wife and kiddies in Florida now, wasn't an example of America's fascism by proxy, eh?

What was Carter's reason for luring the Soviets into Afghanistan anyway? To give them their own Vietnam I think. Do you think Carter gave a tinker's tit for all the folk who'd die while giving the Soviet's their own Vietnam?

I suppose the myriad number of conspiracy prophecies about "the coming martial law" that mysteriously never materialized that I read for 7 odd years of Bush rule wasn't just the babbling of clueless lunatics who spend more time googling elite conspiracies than they do having sex?

I'm gathering that the only American crimes that interest you are the big ones that happen on your TV. Not too many videos of American planes illegally bombing po' folk in Central America for you to study late at night, eh? Oh well, you keep believing what you believe. I know you will anyway. Maybe the fairy of free and good America will sprinkle pixie dust on everything so that Bush and co. can be punished in a manner suitable to your tastes. Then we can return to our original course of spreading freedom truth and justice to the world.

What a hoot.

Have I talked to the Conspiracy crowd? No, but I've read a fair amount of it. Like you, they love the straw man defense. But humans are essentially mimics, aren't they? I think the phrase is "Monkey see, monkey do."

You just listed a bunch of crimes of the new world order crime syndicate(School of America's trained death squads in Latin America, creation of Soviet/Afghan war, coups, etc)

That's all "conspiracy theory research" is, political activism of little known events that have affected a lot of people negatively

I think that T4Y made an important point in that "Blowback" and "Inside Job" are by no means mutually exclusive...

Blowblack implies that *independent* angry Muslims solely and alone were responsible for 9/11.

My view is that you can genuinely have devoted(or brainwashed) jihadits to the core whose motivation is "blowback", but that the true masterminds and provocatuers could care less about Allah or anything relating to the Islamic cause...and instead are merely using Islamic extremists to create chaos.

[American Dream]

8bit agent wrote:

My view is that you can genuinely have devoted(or brainwashed) jihadits to the core whose motivation is "blowback", but that the true masterminds and provocatuers could care less about Allah or anything relating to the Islamic cause...and instead are merely using Islamic extremists to create chaos.

This is what I'm talking about- a way in which "blowback" and "inside job" can both exist in the same world. Maybe this is actually the world we are living in. Either way, gets to my (implied) point that we don't need to always be fighting each other- we may all be somewhat blind, but speaking about the very same elephant...