--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
http://www.ainfos.ca/
________________________________________________
Pathologizing Dissent
June 17, 2002-In April, when mainstream media reported Congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney's call for an investigation of the events of September 11, I was
surprised, yet not at all shocked to hear pejorative comments from the likes
of Ari Fleischer, alleging that McKinney must be competing in a contest for
"The Grassy Knoll Society." However, I was and continue to be viscerally
astounded with the inordinate terror of "conspiracy theory" within
mainstream, and yes, even progressive, media.
A lifetime of psychological training immediately kicked in, and rather than
feeling defensive of McKinney's assertions, with which I happen to
thoroughly agree, I felt compelled to reflect upon what I have come to
believe is "conspiracy phobia" among some of the greatest minds in media. I
find no other way to account for a perception of anything even remotely
resembling conspiracy paradigms as a kind of intellectual leprosy. What is
so tragic about this dread and loathing is not the irrationality of it all,
but the enmity and polarization it is creating within what could and should
be a consistent, collaborative, congenial left-liberal alliance in a time of
unprecedented corruption, criminality and constitutional degradation in
American government.
For example, shortly after September 11, the websites of Mike Ruppert's From
The Wilderness, Global Research and The Emperor's New Clothes began
publishing a plethora of inconsistencies in the "official" U.S. government
explanation of the attacks. Shortly thereafter, Chip Berlet of (Public
Research Associates) criticized Ruppert's "conspiracism," stating that
Ruppert's allegations "fall short of journalistic standards of evidence and
proof." He goes on to say that Ruppert makes sweeping claims that cannot be
verified and "serve to distract from serious progressive opposition to the
status quo and sometimes even discredit it."
In March, referring specifically to Mike Ruppert, David Corn of The Nation,
in his article "When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad," wrote: "I won't argue
that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skullduggery
from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected
the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill
thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd." Oh
really? Then how is it that Gore Vidal, Seymour Hersch and Michael Moore are
now asking the same questions that were asked by the aforementioned websites
shortly after September 11? More dramatically, on May 12, 2002, MSNBC
released a story: "What Did FBI Know About 9-11 Attacks?" indicating that
the FBI has now embarrassingly admitted that some of its agents had received
information last summer regarding a possible World Trade Center attack in
the fall.
Anyone who has read stories published by From The Wilderness, Global
Research or Emperor's New Clothes can only be in awe of the impeccable
documentation of evidence presented. A particular case in point is Mike
Ruppert's extraordinary video documentary, The Truth And Lies About 9-11,
recorded at a three-hour presentation at Portland State University in
November 2001. In the presentation, Ruppert explicitly states that he is
presenting his case as an attorney would to a jury or as law enforcement
would present evidence to a district attorney. After viewing the video
several times, I could only chuckle at Berlet's assertion that Mike Ruppert
"makes sweeping claims that cannot be verified," or "that Ruppert's
allegations serve to distract from serious progressive opposition to the
status quo and sometimes even discredit it."
In a letter to KPFA, the Berkeley, California, radio station on which
Congresswoman McKinney first publicly verbalized her call for an
investigation of 9-11, columnist Norman Solomon questioned the station's
scheduling of a radio interview with Mike Ruppert, suggesting that the
station had been giving him too much airtime. Solomon warned that " . . .
such programming, when it is 'successful,' encourages people to fixate on
the specter of a diabolical few plotters rather than on the profoundly
harmful realities of ongoing, structural, institutional, systemic factors."
Solomon continues with phrases such as, " . . . when logic becomes secondary
to flashy claims . . ." and " . . . assertions unsupported by evidence." He
concludes with a curious question: "Aren't the well-documented crimes of the
U.S. government and huge corporations enough to merit our ongoing outrage,
focused attention and activism?"
I find Solomon's remarks fascinating not only because Ruppert, Global
Research, Emperor's New Clothes, Cynthia McKinney, and now, the MSNBC news
story suggesting foreknowledge of the attacks, all include assertions
overwhelmingly supported by concrete evidence. But I find Solomon's
concluding question even more curious for another reason, and herein lies a
key hiatus of logic in conspiracy phobia. Solomon is essentially polarizing
the assertions of those questioning the U.S. government's explanation of
9-11 as somehow separate from the "well-documented crimes of the U.S.
government and huge corporations." In other words, progressives who do not
raise the question of U.S. government foreknowledge of the attacks operate
in the realm of "ongoing, structural, institutional, systemic factors,"
whereas those who do present evidence for government foreknowledge are
"fixating on the specter of a diabolical few plotters." Hence, we are asked
to choose between "systemic" and "conspiracy" as the only options in the
9-11 debate.
Apparently, Solomon, Berlet and Corn have never read or understood anything
written or spoken by those who assert government foreknowledge. Mike
Ruppert, in particular, painstakingly embeds the events of September 11 in
the "ongoing, structural, institutional, systemic factors" of a government
that has in the last four decades, become, in his words, "a criminal
empire." His perspective is not one of scapegoating a small minority of
conspirators, but rather is a perspective that can best be described as what
Peter Dale Scott calls an understanding of deep politics or "A deep
political system or process . . . one which habitually resorts to
decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those
publicly sanctioned by law and society. In popular terms, collusive secrecy
and law-breaking are part of how the deep political system works." What
Solomon is describing (ongoing, structural, institutional and systemic) is
precisely synonymous with "deep politics."
But even aside from the systemic vs. conspiracy dichotomy, the very word
conspiracy has in itself become a smearing epithet for some-tantamount to
schizophrenic or delusional. As Carla Binion noted at the beginning of her
excellent May 2001 article in Online Journal, "Conspiracy Fact vs.
Conspiracy Theory," there have been actual conspiracies in this country such
as Watergate, Iran-Contra, BCCI, the savings and loan scandal, Iraq-gate and
Cointelpro. Unfortunately, those who would turn reality inside out in order
to avoid being labeled with the horrifying "C" word, rarely make a
distinction between conspiracy fact and conspiracy theory, simplistically
dismissing the evidence presented by those who suggest foreknowledge of 9-11
as "conspiracy" theory (interpretation: psychotic drivel).
What would be amusing, were it not so distressing, is that progressives who
criticize those who suggest foreknowledge as holding a non-systemic view,
seem themselves, to be behaving extraordinarily "non-systemically" in their
censure of those individuals. Why might this be so? Again, I return to the
issue of fear. What I continue to hear is the terror of crossing a line, for
as Berlet says, "I think Ruppert steps over the line into conspiracist
allegations. . . ." What is that line, and why is crossing it so dreaded by
certain progressive thinkers?
What would it mean to state with all candor, holding in one's hands
extraordinary amounts of credible, superbly-documented, coherent, sound
evidence that the U.S. government may have had foreknowledge of the
September 11 attacks? What are the consequences of making such an assertion?
For the short answer, we have only to ask Cynthia McKinney to tell us how
the media have savaged her, some even calling for her investigation by the
House Ethics Committee. That in itself, is certainly enough to discourage
any journalist from crossing the frightful line. But even attacks have not
daunted McKinney, Ruppert or others. "Sticks and stones," and so on. The
issue of line-crossing is much more complex-a word so beloved by our
conspiracy-phobic friends.
To conclude on the basis of what is a groundswell of extraordinarily
well-documented evidence that the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the
attacks is to essentially conclude that we do not have a government-at least
one based on the rule of law. It is, furthermore, to conclude that the
Constitution of that government is virtually non-existent and that our civil
liberties, like all of the documents pertaining to Enron trading that were
stored in the offices of the SEC in the World Trade Center, went up in smoke
on that tragic September morning. To conclude that our government had
foreknowledge of the attacks is to conclude that within the current
political system, as we now know it, there is no hope-no party, no
candidate, no organization in this country that can reverse the brick wall
toward which this nation is reeling at locomotive speed.
In other words, crossing the line is synonymous with crossing into the
reality that we have long since ceased to live in a democracy and that we
now live in a criminal, militaristic empire that is essentially holding us
hostage as it takes its war for oil and drugs all over the world for what it
shamelessly admits may be the rest of our lives.
To cross the line is to realize that the president, vice-president and
secretary of defense, undoubtedly along with numerous other officials in the
Executive Branch of government, must be arrested and tried for treason.
Perhaps most poignantly, crossing the line would mean that one finally
comprehends, on a cellular level, that while we say that everything changed
on September 11, nothing meaningful has changed if our thinking remains
intact. And certainly, no profound changes on behalf of human decency and
democracy will result as long as those on the left continue to posture,
polarize and pontificate an antiquated worldview.
While all of this may sound morbidly hopeless, I do not feel so. I see
enormous hope in the sharing of information and the constant bubbling forth
of unexpected voices questioning the "official" explanations of 9-11. Among
other incisive statements made by Mike Ruppert in his 9-11 tape is this one:
"People playing in a rigged game get stupid."
The U.S. government has been playing in a rigged game for decades, and it is
growing increasingly sloppy and inept in covering up its surreptitious,
felonious, murderous machinations. Whether or not the dam will fully break
and a torrent of public opinion will ignite protest in this nation that will
pale the '60s by comparison remains to be seen.
But meanwhile, let us examine the conspiracy phobias we all have and let us
be courageous enough to reflect and examine introspectively whatever
investments we still hold in the criminal empire, be they in stock
portfolios or deep in the trembling recesses of our vulnerable psyches.
*******************************
Alternative Press Review - www.altpr.org
Your Guide Beyond the Mainstream
PO Box 4710 - Arlington, VA 22204
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
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://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[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
--- End Message ---
