Credulousity and Its Discontents


Credulousity and Its Discontents

If we ever find the time, perhaps we should conduct a group analysis of the hit pieces emanating from the intellectual/academic left against the '9/11 Truth Movement'. Among other similarities, they each exhibit a noteworthy "dual consciousness." In a 1997 interview, the great 20th century sociologist Pierre Bourdieu used the phrase to refer to the mindset of media professionals who publicly deny the insidious workings of the invisible structures of corporate broadcasting - masking it even from themselves to an extent - all the while they take advantage of the media tool at their disposal and denounce their critics, claiming they have uncovered nothing which hasn't been known for ages about the media.

Thus we can hear in one breath from Alexander Cockburn that US intelligence infiltrates terror cells and foments terrorism for the purpose of catching the terrorists in the act, and in the next also that even the suggestion that 9/11 could have had false-flag origination is "nutty." Cockburn admits that "Sometime (sic) an undercover agent will actually propose an action, either to deflect efforts away from some graver threat, or to put the plotters in a position where they can be caught red-handed." But according to Cockburn it’s completely nutty to even consider the possibility that these same murderous double and triple-dealers would be utilized to plan a terror event that will ultimately be blamed on official enemies for the purposes of gaining a stronger hold on power. Has he heard of Operation Gladio? Of course he has, so his puzzling insistence on limiting the range of possibility needs explanation.

If you were Christopher Hayes, you might say Cockburn exhibits excessive credulousity. That's the phrase used by the latest batter to take a swing at the ‘9/11 truth movement,’ Christopher Hayes. There is some very good analysis in his piece, but regarding 9/11 skepticism Hayes turns out to be devastatingly blinkered. Showing signs of the Bourdieuian double-consciousness referred to above, Hayes first tells us the Bush administration has routinely lied with relative impunity over the last six years, so skepticism of its motives is warranted. But then we learn that skepticism about 9/11 is completely baseless, 'dangerous' and a 'waste of time.' This despite the fact that Hayes offers nothing approaching a detailed argument to back up the claims.

Now, he does reference the "Popular Mechanics" article of 2005, but he writes as if the piece was remotely comprehensive or somehow the final word on the subjects it raised (it was neither). One wonders: did Hayes even read the PM piece? Maybe if he did he'd know that the article studiously ignored the best arguments for US complicity and focused instead almost exclusively on interpretations of the hotly-contested 'physical evidence'.

There's also no evidence Hayes read the "9/11 Commission Report" either, which he is willing to admit was a 'whitewash'. But if so, how can he be sure just what exactly is being covered up?


The left continue to ignore the evidence

Modern lefties like Chomsky and Cockburn are esentially phony dissident supporters of the status-quo. Aside from maintaining a vehement anti-Israel stance, they don't really say do anything useful. On the surface they appear to bash the CIA and Israel, but by ignoring the facts they lose all credibility.

Noam's 9/11 remarks should show that he's completely irrelevant. He has an audience that will buy every book he writes, even though it's the same old recyled crap. Counterpunch should be called Wristslap.


Pass the popcorn. They're just discrediting themselves.

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments. - Friedrich Nietzsche