[Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Would you like a GD Data Dump for media examples of the term "CT"?

Poll ended at Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:11 am

Yes
11
65%
No
6
35%
 
Total votes : 17

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:25 am

Here's a great example of how to gather together (and consolidate comment on) a whole bunch of different bullshit articles and TV programmes in the mass media:



That title was very well chosen by IanEye, because he correctly anticipated a media shitstorm, and the thread is an efficient way of collecting every single piece of shit that emerges. Its a hygienic measure, and therefore a service to the board and to everyone who posts or reads here.

But of course that countdown will soon be over: the date 11/22/13 will be passed in less than a month.

So a good title for what I had in mind would be (something like):

Media Disinfo Central: "Conspiracy Theory" as a term of abuse (post all examples here):


(Needn't necessarily be a sticky, I suppose, but...)
There sawe I fyrst the derke ymagynyng
Of felony [...]
The pyckpurse and eke the pale drede,
The smyler, with the knyfe under the cloke.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:31 am

I'd call it "Conspiracy Panic: Examples in Media, Academia & Culture"

Borrowing the term from Jack Bratich and his usage of it to denote exactly what we've been talking about here.

Since this is a special project, why not a stickie for a couple of weeks?

This would give us a chance to dig up all old threads in this vein, write up mini-summaries and throw the link in there. (I've thought of like a dozen. Involuntarily. Believe me, got other things to think of, but this is the kind of thing that sneaks in if you're me with my particular set of obsessions/neuroses.)
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14460
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:08 am

Jack Riddler wrote:I'd call it "Conspiracy Panic: Examples in Media, Academia & Culture"


Not bad, Jack, or rather not totally awful, but still far too ambiguous. Because it could as easily be the title of a rant or a smirkfest by Corn or Cockburn or Aaronovitch. To wit:

Conspiracy Panic: Examples in Media, Academia & Culture

It's time for some desperate remedies

By David Aaronovitch

The Guardian, Dec 1, 2013 Posted at 09:11 Last edited at 19:18

Comments: 2,847 Add your voice to the discussion

Formerly restricted to the lunatic fringes of the Internet, the virus of conspiracy theory, or what I now prefer to call "conspiracy panic", has recently begun to infect even respected liberal media. Worse still, former bastions of Enlightenment reason such as Oxford and Harvard have not proven totally immune. To her undying shame, even the Nobel Prizewinning scientist Lynn Margulis succumbed to the panic-virus shortly before her death. Correlation, of course, does not imply causation. But being a biologist, she might surely have been expected to take sensible precautions against disease.

Panic in the streets of London

Now it turns out that everyone's favourite champagne socialist, the comedian and former junkie Russell Brand, has lent his name to one of the dumbest and most repellent conspiracy theories of all, namely that the 9/11 attacks were perhaps planned and supervised by that famously masterly thinker George W. Bush. In an interview in yesterday's Independent, Brand informs his adoring teenybopper disciples that..."

[...]


Whereas he could not possibly have used the title suggested by moi:

Media Disinfo Central: "Conspiracy Theory" as a term of abuse (post all examples here)


. which is unambiguous.
There sawe I fyrst the derke ymagynyng
Of felony [...]
The pyckpurse and eke the pale drede,
The smyler, with the knyfe under the cloke.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:51 am

Did you just write that? Dec. 1, 2013? Clever guy.

Has Brand come out on 9/11?

Okay, let's say your proposal is too unambiguous and programmatic.

Maybe get rid of the "Media Disinfo Central"?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14460
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:17 am

Thank you, Jack. I'm tempted to finish it and send it off to the Guardian. It would be a right laugh if they actually printed it. (If anyone knows how to set up a fake email address, please PM me. I am not computer literate.)

Brand hasn't come out, yet, as far as I know. But unlike Aaronovitch and the other hacks. he clearly has a heart and a head that are in full working order, for his job & his reputation do not depend on him not understanding things. Because, being that rare thing, a free and unfrightened human being, he does not have, need, or even want a job, and is therefore at liberty to remain rational.

JackRiddler wrote:Okay, let's say your proposal is too unambiguous and programmatic.

Maybe get rid of the "Media Disinfo Central"?


Jack, darling, why tamper with perfection?

Image
MacCruiskeen (Photo © Diane Newton/Vanity Fair)
There sawe I fyrst the derke ymagynyng
Of felony [...]
The pyckpurse and eke the pale drede,
The smyler, with the knyfe under the cloke.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:38 pm

Media Disinfo Central: "Conspiracy Theory" as a term of abuse (post all examples here)


OK Jack, if that is too unambiguous and programmatic (I do see your point, and you're right), then how about:

Media Watch: "Conspiracy Theory" as a term of abuse (post all examples here)


...or, indeed, maybe just drop the intro entirely. because of course practically all examples posted are going to be from "the media" anyway, unless they're just personal anecdotes from private conversations.

"Conspiracy Theory" as a term of abuse (post all examples here)


Ok. Fits into a single line, too.

On Edit:

JackRiddler wrote:Since this is a special project, why not a stickie for a couple of weeks?

This would give us a chance to dig up all old threads in this vein, write up mini-summaries and throw the link in there. (I've thought of like a dozen. Involuntarily. Believe me, got other things to think of, but this is the kind of thing that sneaks in if you're me with my particular set of obsessions/neuroses.)


Yup. Good idea. And then we could see how the 'sticky' thang actually works and how quickly posters get used to it, etc.
There sawe I fyrst the derke ymagynyng
Of felony [...]
The pyckpurse and eke the pale drede,
The smyler, with the knyfe under the cloke.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby conniption » Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:08 am

I voted No.

Pardon me for being intentionally oblivious to your concerns, but I quite like the culture of conspiracy theory, and you can't take that away from me. I don't think I care what they say. Fk 'um.

Sorry. (because I like you.)

*

Re-posted from HERE:
abandonculture said: (1st comment)
(embedded links at the source)

November 24, 2011

A fascinating read about a very misunderstood subject for sure. Given the way conspiracy theories have shaped our world (not just in the 21st century but throughout history) I think it’s a subject which needs to be explored, particularly in terms of language – in terms of the very definitions of ‘conspiracy’, ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’.

According to the various dictionary definitions, a ‘conspiracy theory’ refers to a perceived secret or covert activity being conducted by a group or organisation which may or may not be powerful (politically, economically etc) and the perception that such a group are, or have been engaged, in a secret activity.

By definition, the propaganda spread to the German people by Hitler about various perceived agendas of the Jews was a ‘conspiracy theory’. The same can be said about the conspiracy theories concerning infiltration and subversion of the US by communists during the cold war.

Another more recent conspiracy theory was the theory that Saddam Hussein possessed and was building a stockpile of WMDs and therefore posed was an immediate threat to the west. This conspiracy theory was later proved to be wrong. Tragically it turned out that belief in this particular conspiracy theory, or blind trust in those who promoted and spread this conspiracy theory, has so far cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, destroyed a whole nation and cost trillions of dollars which could have been spent on helping civilisation, not wrecking it.

This most dangerous and destructive conspiracy theory was promoted not by basement dwelling tin foil hat wearing nut bars ‘on the internet’ but by governments (and presumably those who lobby them), who collectively disseminated their conspiracy theories through an (overwhelmingly) unquestioning corporate mass media.

Without question Saddam’s alleged WMDs has to rank among the most dangerous and destructive conspiracy theories of the last century, in terms of sheer body count, the huge drain on the taxpayer, the colossal environmental damage and souring of international relations.

Just recently Bush and Blair have been found guilty of war crimes and added to the War Criminals Register by a Malaysian tribunal.

I wonder if the Iraq WMD conspiracy theory is addressed in your book. And if not – given its huge impact on all of our lives across many nations – may I ask why not?

Surely we should not pick and choose what is or isn’t a conspiracy theory based on who is promoting it? We must surely adhere to the dictionary definition and include all that fit that description without bias …… lest we be accused of being ourselves part of some conspiracy to subvert the very meaning of the term ‘conspiracy theory’ to mean ‘people who question authority’. This is certainly NOT what ‘conspiracy theory’ means.

And then there’s 9/11.

The one thing we must ALL agree on is that 9/11 was a result of a sophisticated and despicable conspiracy (that is unless we choose to believe it was the result of a series of random coincidences).

The official narrative of 9/11 is (by dictionary definition) a conspiracy theory: that 19 religious extremists, masterminded by OBL conspired to hijack four planes etc etc ….. Alternative theories that other groups were involved (in conjunction or separately) such as the CIA, Mossad, space aliens etc are also conspiracy theories. Regardless of who carried out 9/11 the level of sophistication and complexity of the conspiracy is (for the sake of argument) about the same and we are all conspiracy theorists (unless we believe the whole thing was a result of accidental coincidence).

It’s important to labour these points and clarify the language – otherwise how can we discuss these important and serious subjects properly?

What is so striking about 9/11 discussion is that the numerous people who now question the validity of this official conspiracy theory with various bits of evidence, facts, arguments, the laws of physics etc are usually labelled as …… ‘conspiracy theorists’.

To classify people who question a ‘conspiracy theory’ as ‘conspiracy theorists’ reeks of Orwellian ‘double think’.

You write:

“However Conspiracy Theory, itself, is severely defective as a credible discourse and theoretical discipline. This is with regards to the subject matter it attempts to engage. This is because it is disjointed, contradictory and often illogical…..”

It is true that many conspiracy theories are problematic. However you refer here to ‘conspiracy theory, itself’ as being inherently problematic. It is not.
I think you need to refer to the dictionary. It is a perfectly straightforward definition of behaviour which is commonplace among all humans at all levels of society. We all conspire with each other in various ways, or are on the receiving end of such conspiratorial behaviour. A surprise birthday party is one example of this. Or cheating at cards, or doping horses at the races, or secretly setting up two people for a date or competing businesses agreeing to engage in price fixing. There is nothing inherently problematic about theorising a conspiracy (or anything else for that matter), regardless of whether that theory turns out to be correct or not.

Perhaps you are referring to conspiracy theories proposed by people NOT in positions of power and without the resources to conduct expensive independent investigations or make a slick documentary film or computer model and therefore are always going to be at a disadvantage in conveying their conspiracy theory convincingly. Or a theory which, to be proven, requires information which is being withheld by a third party.

But such shortcomings and limitations must be acknowledged and accounted for (if truth is the goal, that is). An unproven – or currently unprovable – conspiracy theory is not necessarily wrong.

But of course some CT’s are weak and inconsistent, for sure! But I have to say these criticisms are equally applicable to many official conspiracies theories, such as 9/11.

I don’t want to get into the specifics of 9/11 any more than I have to to make my point…… but would you agree that, for example, the fact that the FBI never formally indicted Bin Laden for the events of 9/11 because in the words of Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, “…….the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″ would appear to contradict an essential component of the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11 – namely that it was masterminded by OBL?

OBL was never formally charged (much less tried or convicted) of 9/11 by anyone, yet there he is, smack bang in the official conspiracy theory as the alleged mastermind behind the whole event. This makes his involvement in the event a matter of hearsay by definition (rather like his alleged murder and hasty disposal, I might add).

The fact that this blatant contradiction of the official conspiracy theory comes from the FBI, as opposed to some basement dwelling ‘internet user’, makes it extremely problematic, as I’m sure you would agree.

And the fact that this contradiction (one of hundreds it has to be said) is not even being addressed – let alone resolved – by those who promote the official conspiracy theory is also noteworthy. ‘Crazy conspiracy theorists’ (as we all know) always sidestep inconvenient facts and evidence which do not support their wacky theories. The facts surrounding OBL vs the official conspiracy theory represent a classic example of wilful blindness to the facts.

This huge contradiction is further reinforced by the fact that the Bin Laden family in fact had many connections to the Bush family. This includes Bin Laden’s brother helping GW Bush set up his first oil company (‘Arbusto’) in Texas.

We also know that the TV news told us within minutes of the first plane hitting the twin towers (before the towers had even come down) that the events we were witnessing live on TV “…bore all the hallmarks of an Bin Laden/ Al Qaeda attack”. Such bold conspiracy allegations, before any investigation, without any facts and before any valuable intelligence could possibly have been gathered (it was supposed to have been a surprise attack after all!) is precisely the kind of reckless accusatory behaviour levelled at so called ’9/11 truthers’ – is it not?

(The fact that ‘truther’ – ie one who seeks the truth – is now being used as a derogatory term by those who believe in the official government 9/11 conspiracy theory is extremely disturbing to say the least. What would Orwell have said about such use of language?!)

While the public was being primed, via the media, with the idea that Osama Bin Laden was responsible, the entire Bin Laden family were being flown out of the US. They were not detained and questioned, despite OBL having been already accused as ‘number one suspect’. In fact they were flown out at a time when all US civilian flights were still grounded.

If someone were to ask the simple, straightforward question “why were they flown out in such a hurry instead of being questioned about their relative who was already alleged to be ‘number one suspect’?” what kind of person would that make them…… a conspiracy theorist? …… or an intelligent critical thinker asking a perfectly valid question?

You write:

“Here the conspiracy theory regarding one event or orgnaisation is scattered and contradictory. It has no overarching or unified principle. You probably could not get more than three conspiracy theorists to agree on the nature of the particular conspiracy theory in question and what it entails.”

Is it not more unhealthy and dangerous for everyone to agree and form a consensus world view? Isn’t history littered with the devastating consequences of populations willing to act in a herd like manner?

Can this lack of agreement not be regarded instead as a sign of (a) healthy scepticism (b) inevitable confusion and speculation in the face of an overly secretive state unwilling to give us the information we need?


For example, (again not wishing to get into specifics too much) there is much debate and disagreement about what exactly hit the Pentagon. Is that the fault of so called ‘conspiracy theorists’? Does it demonstrate a lack of intellect, rigour, consistency or critical prowess on their part? Or could all the bickering and crazy theories perhaps be because there is too little evidence being made available to convince anyone of anything specific? All the 80 or so CCTV cameras were confiscated immediately and only a few frames were ever released showing no evidence of a plane whatsoever. Some Pentagon employees say they saw wreckage while others say they escaped from the building through the entry hole and saw no plane wreckage at all.

“Nothing to hide nothing to fear”, as we are always told. So why such an effort to hide the CCTV and other evidence from the public?


What if it was an night time shop break in insurance claim and the shop owner refused to release the CCTV images which would identify the thieves – who wouldn’t suspect some kind of foul play in that instance? It would be rational to at least be suspicious of an insurance job in that case.

As if the CCTV issue wasn’t enough to raise suspicions, the initial hole in the Pentagon (before the wall collapsed 45 minutes later) is clearly about 16 feet across with intact windows on either side. In addition no significant wreckage was identified (landing gear, titanium engines etc) with various official narratives being tried out on the public such as ‘instant vaporisation of plane due to fire’ etc (despite office furniture and plastic computer monitors surviving without any melting or burning).

We also have the conflicting news reports from the scene with reporters stating live on air that they saw no evidence of a plane having hit the building.

Many experts including those from the US military and civilian pilots question or refute the official narrative which alleges that a 757 hit indeed the Pentagon, as can be seen in this video. Perhaps they are all misguided or inexplicably deluded. We have to consider that possibility. But why is it that their questions are never addressed, let alone answered? If the official conspiracy theory is valid (ie factually correct and true) there should be an answer available to every question raised. It shouldn’t be a problem. Yet there are no answers forthcoming. To validate the official conspiracy someone has to address these issues and provide satisfactory (evidence based) answers. Until then the official conspiracy theory is just another unverified, problematic, speculative theory yet to be proven.

(the issue of unanswered questions applies to just about every aspect of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, another example being the thousands of experts and professionals who question the official narrative concerning the free fall, symmetrical, vertical collapse of WTC 7)

You also seem to assume the public debate is focused on which ‘conspiracy theory’ is true (ie defending one’s own particular stance against an opponent’s stance). But as I have already pointed out, while some do argue in this manner, most serious people looking into events like 9/11 are actually questioning and challenging existing conspiracy theories (such as the official conspiracy theory of 9/11). In this sense they are merely gathering and verifying data, testing various hypothesis against the data, seeing what DOES and DOESN’T make logical sense etc.

This is the scientific method.

Sure, discussions on the internet often get heated and emotional but being a ‘truther’ (wanting to get to the truth through a process of persistent enquiry and debate) should always applauded and encouraged. Do you agree?

The alternative is to blindly adhere to ‘authority’ and ‘group think’ which is without doubt a recipe for disaster and a one-way ticket back to the dark ages of superstitious beliefs dispensed by authority figures – the very antithesis of all that this enlightened scientific age stands for.

You write:

“Undoubtedly, at the turn of the millennium, the Bush Administration, 9/11 and the Iraq war increased the propagations, popularity and success of conspiratorial publications and ideas.”

As I have already mentioned, these events are, by definition, based on conspiratorial ideas themselves. (the ‘Saddam’s got WMDs’ conspiracy, the ‘OBL masterminded 9/11′ conspiracy etc). These official conspiracies are problematic and contradictory at best and in many cases already proven to be fraudulent (eg Iraq’s WMDs).

This simple point cannot be over emphasised: government policies such as Homeland Security and the Patriot Act through to its wars of terror, occupation and genocide – are based on the government’s very own conspiracy theories. This has been the case throughout history. The entire WoT is based on a conspiracy theory concerning terrorists ‘out there’ who are relentlessly planning to commit unspecified crimes over here somewhere, anywhere, everywhere…. probably of a suicidal and explosive nature. This conspiracy theory is so strong it justifies locking up suspects and torturing them without trial, and ignores their pleas of innocence and lack of knowledge of any such conspiratorial schemes. (“don’t be such a bunch of paranoid nutters, stop water boarding me and let me go!” they might be inclined to say).

Meanwhile, most of the western world is being stripped of their rights and privacy in order to allegedly protect them against this vague threat central to the conspiracy theory of ‘global terrorism’. With drones, retina scans, lamp posts with hidden microphones in them and software in school laptops discreetly taking pictures of pupils in their own homes already in place and in the news every day it probably won’t be too long before tin foil hats are distributed to all to increase out protection against these etherial but deadly* terrorist conspirators.

(*despite the fact that more people die in DIY accidents than acts of terrorism, statistically speaking).

When the public questions and challenges these ever increasingly paranoid official conspiracy theories (and the ‘insecurity state’ they create) it does not automatically make them ‘conspiracy theorists’. It just means they are questioning an existing conspiracy theory. It is healthy to do so. And when the public does put forward their own conspiracy theories they are doing nothing that the government isn’t also doing (although, unlike government conspiracy theories, the public’s conspiracy theories rarely result in torture, loss of human life or cost the taxpayer any money).

In addition, it does need to be said that governments across the world have been caught lying, deceiving and using their power, authority and weaponry for criminal activities over and over and over and over again recently and throughout history. If there were not conspiracies occurring involving people inside or connected to governments right now it would be the first time ever in human history. If one eliminates the possibility of conspiracy involving governments, corporations or the ‘establishment’ one might as well imagine the rest of society is free of conspiracy too. It’s equally as ridiculous.

Hey, let’s all get rid of all the police and leave our houses and cars unlocked all the time (and banks too!), because as we all know conspiracies are so ridiculous and only idiots believe in them!!!

Obviously nobody really thinks like that. We know that the potential for conspiracy between people will always exist. If you take steps to secure and insure your own property then, by definition, you believe the potential for conspiratorial behaviour exists among human beings. The more power available to would-be conspirators to wield (financial, political, military etc) the more destructive a conspiracy can potentially be. Fascism (or indeed communism) is born out of a conspiracy between the state and corporations. It is one of the most destructive conspiracies imaginable. Should we dismiss the possibility of fascism/ communism occurring forever more, and deny its existence in history and the millions who died under it? Isn’t that far more ‘wacky’ than believing such things remain an ever present possibility that we need to guard against?

It is a fundamental aspect of so called ‘democracy’ that the public question and keep checks on their government, in fact it is their duty as responsible citizens to do so, in order to protect society from (would be) tyrants abusing the power of the state or any other form of power.

Would you condemn, dismiss, or ridicule the German public for questioning and challenging Hitler’s conspiracy theory about communist terrorists burning down his Reichstag? Perhaps if they had been more inclined to do so Hitler would not have been able to pass his ‘Enabling Act’ which was supposedly brought in to protect the Homeland from terrorists in the wake of the Reichstag fire.

Likewise, what harm does it do for people to question the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 and question the motive for the subsequent creation of the Homeland Security Act supposedly to protect Americans from terrorists in the wake of 9/11?

If questioning official government conspiracy theories becomes socially stigmatised to the point that nobody dares to question them for fear of ridicule, ostracism or persecution, what message would this send out to anyone seeking to gain power and wield the power of the state for their own nefarious agendas?

Lastly, I would like to ask you to clarify at what point, in your opinion, a conspiracy theory become credible or at least worthy of further research and consideration.

For example we know that more than half the US presidents were freemasons. Freemasonic symbolism is built into the very street map of Washington for goodness sake! If that is not enough to pique your interest what would your threshold be?

What if 80% of presidents being freemasons….. 90%….95%….? At what point would you become suspicious?


Is it ‘crazy’ to believe that perhaps no commander in chief in charge of a super power with nuclear weapons should ever belong to any secret society? (certainly not secret societies which force their initiates to pledge total loyalty on pain of death, superseding all laws when they first join – like the freemasons do).

Or do you think it’s OK for presidents and other people in power to have such conflict of interests?

In a recent US presidential election the choices were between GW Bush and John Kerry. They are cousins, both connected to the oil industry and both admit to being members of the Skull and Bones secret society (an order with distinct Nazi connections FWIW).


I’m assuming you find nothing suspicious or potentially conspiratorial about these ‘coincidences’ in a country of 300 million where ‘anyone can become president’. This is fair enough, we’re all entitled to our opinions.

But I invite you to state what exactly your threshold would be before your suspicions were raised. What if they had been brothers, or perhaps identical twins – would that be cause enough to suspect some kind of conspiracy at play?


My point is that a conspiracy theory might at first ‘feel’ ridiculous, but often this just means we are feeling uncomfortable thinking of possibilities beyond the artificially generated (eg mass media) consensus world view we have all been born into. But to evaluate the outlandishness of any conspiracy theory we need to always consider the ‘opposite’ of that conspiracy theory, too.

The ‘opposite’ of a conspiracy theory is usually either another conspiracy theory or coincidence theory.


For example the idea that 9/11 was the result of some kind of false flag operation might seem too outlandish, at first ….. but before we dismiss the possibility entirely it’s important that we also examine the ‘opposite’ of this theory and see how it compares in terms of outlandishness.

Disregarding coincidence (I think it’s safe to do so) we are left to consider the degree of outlandishness of the official conspiracy theory vs the various false flag conspiracy theories. This official conspiracy is very seldom explained in detail in the media. Which is odd, when you consider how much this conspiracy theory has changed society, and changed the world, over the last decade.

Here is a short summary of the major components of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Well, I tried to keep it as short as I could! :)

Any thoughts?
conniption
 
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby NeonLX » Fri Nov 01, 2013 9:37 am

^^^^That's a keeper, Mac. Thanks.
America is a fucked society because there is no room for essential human dignity. Its all about what you have, not who you are.--Joe Hillshoist
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby Elvis » Fri Nov 01, 2013 12:55 pm

I can't decide on the poll question, but for a title I do prefer the original phrasing, "Conspiracy Theory" in the media (with 'CT' spelled out). Maybe add "post examples here" or similar etc.
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6121
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:18 pm

Elvis » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:55 am wrote:I can't decide on the poll question, but for a title I do prefer the original phrasing, "Conspiracy Theory" in the media (with 'CT' spelled out). Maybe add "post examples here" or similar etc.


Elvis, the main point I am trying make is that the very term itself is pernicious bullshit, and completely unsalvageable for any kind of rational discourse. It is as useless -- and (this is the point) as worse-than-useless --- as the terms "Aryan science", or "drapetomania", or "the lower orders".or "uppity n*ggers" or "the Jewish problem" or "the weaker sex" or "Gay Bowel Syndrome".

I've quoted this definitive paragraph from Jamey Hecht at least a dozen times already on this board, so I feel no compunction whatsoever about bolding the whole thing now:

Wrong In All Directions: The Term "Conspiracy Theory"

This phrase is among the tireless workhorses of establishment discourse. Without it, disinformation would be much harder than it is. "Conspiracy theory" is a trigger phrase, saturated with intellectual contempt and deeply anti-intellectual resentment. It makes little sense on its own, and while it's a priceless tool of propaganda, it is worse than useless as an explanatory category.


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... union.html


No one has every picked the single tiniest hole in what Hecht wrote there.

In fact, that paragraph-title itself would make a very good title for the RI sticky thread:

Wrong In All Directions: The Term "Conspiracy Theory"
There sawe I fyrst the derke ymagynyng
Of felony [...]
The pyckpurse and eke the pale drede,
The smyler, with the knyfe under the cloke.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby Elvis » Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:43 pm

MacCruiskeen » Fri Nov 01, 2013 10:18 am wrote:
Elvis » Fri Nov 01, 2013 11:55 am wrote:I can't decide on the poll question, but for a title I do prefer the original phrasing, "Conspiracy Theory" in the media (with 'CT' spelled out). Maybe add "post examples here" or similar etc.


Elvis, the main point I am trying make is that the very term itself is pernicious bullshit, and completely unsalvageable for any kind of rational discourse. It is as useless -- and (this is the point) as worse-than-useless --- as the terms "Aryan science", or "drapetomania", or "the lower orders".or "uppity n*ggers" or "the Jewish problem" or "the weaker sex" or "Gay Bowel Syndrome".

I've quoted this definitive paragraph from Jamey Hecht at least a dozen times already on this board, so I feel no compunction whatsoever about bolding the whole thing now:

Wrong In All Directions: The Term "Conspiracy Theory"

This phrase is among the tireless workhorses of establishment discourse. Without it, disinformation would be much harder than it is. "Conspiracy theory" is a trigger phrase, saturated with intellectual contempt and deeply anti-intellectual resentment. It makes little sense on its own, and while it's a priceless tool of propaganda, it is worse than useless as an explanatory category.


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... union.html


No one has every picked the single tiniest hole in what Hecht wrote there.

In fact, that paragraph-title itself would make a very good title for the RI sticky thread:

Wrong In All Directions: The Term "Conspiracy Theory"


Very good, yes. I had supposed that putting quote marks around the term signaled its questionability, but I see your aim and will give it further thought -- the term really needs honest framing (followed by abolition).
"Frankly, I don't think it's a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous."
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 6121
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Nov 01, 2013 1:47 pm

It's offensive, Elvis. It is a deeply offensive term. And deeply & destructively stupid to boot.

And yes, I can put up with being offended, but not if it obliges me to submit to a lobotomy too.
There sawe I fyrst the derke ymagynyng
Of felony [...]
The pyckpurse and eke the pale drede,
The smyler, with the knyfe under the cloke.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby Forgetting2 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 2:04 pm

I've found it helpful, whenever someone says to me, 'so you're a conspiracy theorist,' to reply 'that depends on what you mean by that.' Or some such thing. It will, at least some times, make them stop for a moment to think about it. If you can get them to come to a definition of terms which isn't self-defining, it may be possible to have an actual rational discussion.

Another favorite of mine, when applicable, is from one of Jeff's posts: Deep Politics it the theory, conspiracy the hypothesis. (Another one that forces a definition of terms.)

Of course none of that works when shouting at the TV :shrug:
You know what you finally say, what everybody finally says, no matter what? I'm hungry. I'm hungry, Rich. I'm fuckin' starved. -- Cutter's Way
User avatar
Forgetting2
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Nov 01, 2013 5:07 pm

A seven-page RI thread, started in February 2010 and since sunk without trace:

9/11 and the Left: Is there any way forward?

It's all been said before, and it's all still timely & highly relevant. Hence this-here new thread here, again again again.
There sawe I fyrst the derke ymagynyng
Of felony [...]
The pyckpurse and eke the pale drede,
The smyler, with the knyfe under the cloke.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: [Poll] A sticky thread for "'CT' in the media"?

Postby Forgetting2 » Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:05 am

Well the hits just keep coming

LAX gunman had 'new world order' conspiracy tract


I was kind of wondering where to post this :shrug:
You know what you finally say, what everybody finally says, no matter what? I'm hungry. I'm hungry, Rich. I'm fuckin' starved. -- Cutter's Way
User avatar
Forgetting2
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests