-Caveat Lector- WHO IS HOGGING ALL THE SPACE?
SEPTEMBER 5, 2004. For the last 20 years, I've watched a truly depraved phenomenon in the so-called alternative press, which press has expanded to include websites and message boards and chats and so on. The analysis of 9/11 has made this situation even worse. I'm not interested in naming names or throwing daggers. The basic assumptions, however, are these: ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU MUST BE A CIA PLANT. CERTAIN FIGURES IN THE ALTERNATIVE PRESS ARE HOGGING ALL THE AVAILABLE AND PRECIOUS SPACE. CERTAIN CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE NOT ONLY TOO FAR OUT, THEY SHOULD BE SQUELCHED, BECAUSE THEY GIVE "THE MOVEMENT" A BAD NAME. Generated from these ASSUMPTIONS, we get furious debate which quickly degenerates into name calling and lies about people, and borders on slander. In other words, people who are researching alternative news try to smash each other over the head. It resembles little kids on the playground who are out of control. In the case of 9/11 alt. analysis, there is no MOVEMENT in the ordinary sense of the word. There are no elected or appointed or self-appointed leaders of large numbers of people. There are many independent researchers who are trying to figure out what actually happened prior to, and during, and after 9/11. There is no set limit on AVAILABLE SPACE. The Internet provides plenty of space. And if a few people have become more prominent in that space than others, so what? The goal should be to come up with the very best information about 9/11. To nail it down. Civil discussion, reasoned debate is good. But screaming doesn't get it done. As readers of this site know, I've presented 9/11 as a planned op of major complexity. Any big op---when analyzed---has a number of components, and different people are going to focus on different aspects. Forensic evidence. Who covered up the op. What lies were told. Who planned it. Who executed it. What false trails were laid down. Who benefits. Among independent researchers, there will be those who concentrate on getting into the mainstream. They give talks, they hold press conferences, they stage rallies. Such people are not always the most complete researchers. They don't have to be. They want to move the big rock of ignorance if they can. If you look, from a distance, at the JFK assassination, you will be able to view a huge spread of people who have gone at that event with various positive goals. It's what always happens. When I did my initial stint on the AIDS op almost 20 years ago, I ran into alt. researchers who had come up with conclusions about the scam that were different from mine. For the most part, we didn't chew on each other. In fact, several of us eventually realized we were all feeling different parts of the big elephant, and since AIDS was not one condition, we all had something to say about what "it" was. The few lame attacks that were made against me didn't come from the mainstream. They came from people in "the alternative community" who were generally pissed off about everything under the sun and thought that THE AVAILABLE SPACE FOR DISSIDENT OPINION was limited. They were obsessed with scarcity. They were sure they couldn't get a foot in the door because I was blocking it. I wasn't blocking anything. This relates to a very small minority of emails I've gotten over the years from people who demand that I cover some story or another. These few folks kept coming back and back with their emails on the same subject. My response was usually: hey, dude, start your own website. It rarely happened. Their agenda was of another kind. At the root? THERE ISN'T ENOUGH SPACE. Bullshit. A corollary of the no-space assumption: if people with "bad research" get to be well-known, no one will believe the truth. You might be surprised at how many people believe that one. I'm sorry to break the news, but getting to be well-known is a function of very hard work. If the wrong people are the most well-known, then it is the job of other people to trump them with harder work and better facts. Sure, there are people in the mix of any op aftermath who are plants. They're there to spread cover stories and ridiculous lies, and to discredit honest researchers. But the way out of that, in the long run, is better facts and harder work. You might be able to expose some of these plants for what they are, but that isn't going to carry the main water. JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
