Skepticism, Ideology, and the 9/11 Controversy

Here's a brief but concise riposte to the progressive media types -- Cockburn, Monbiot, Rothschild -- who have been chirping about 9/11 skepticism. This blog is credited to Michael Dudley, who apparently is at the University of Winnipeg:

"And it is these influential liberals in question, not 911 skepticism, that is doing great damage to progressive causes -- and not just because they appear to be turning progressives against each other. Their own rigidity, dogmatism and intolerance for dissent will only serve to undermine all they would otherwise hope to accomplish -- in terms of the environment and social equity -- and for one fundamental reason: Quite contrary to Monbiot's assertions, it is the war on terror that is the primary "displacement activity" burying progressive causes, not 911 skepticism.

The war on terror is such a potent metanarrative that it is driving a host of policy decisions -- even in an otherwise progressive nation as Canada -- that are sucking resources away from human needs, ecological conservation, climate change prevention and adaptation, poverty alleviation and peacemaking. Until this metanarrative is dismantled and revealed for the lethal and cynical fraud it is and always has been, causes supported by progressives will never be properly addressed.

9/11 may not have changed everything, but until this controversy can be openly addressed in the media and through a more objective investigation, we may be unable to change anything."

Click on the link above for the entire entry.

Great post, thanks

"Quite contrary to Monbiot's assertions, it is the war on terror that is the primary "displacement activity" burying progressive causes, not 911 skepticism."

This is a very important point.


I realize that some might argue it is somewhat fallacious reasoning to say, "The war on terror distracts from social justice more than 9/11 skepticism," as if that comparison is what really matters (that is, it doesn't prove 9/11 skepticism correct); but the evidence overwhelmingly supports this, and the effects of the war on terror can be measured in hundreds of thousands dead. The effect of 9/11 skepticism, by comparison, is entirely benign.

If anyone reading this is a liberal who is unsure of how misleading the War on Terror really is, start by reading political scientist John Mueller's Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them.

Then read David Ray Griffin's The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. This is assuming you have read the report itself.

That should begin to ease you into, first, the fact that the War on Terror is a fraud (no matter what you believe about 9/11), and second, the many possibilities of what may have happened on 9/11.

Yes, and whether LIHOP, MIHOP, or opportunism . . .

the latter of which I think most liberals believe - the government taking advantage of 9/11 to pursue its goals in Central Asia - using terrorism is itself terrorism of your people. This is the argument I used to make at dKos wiithout violating the ban on 9/11 "conspiracy theories." Mueller's book is a great source for making the case that the government is terrorizing us. Some of this is bureaucratic behavior, of course - 9/11 increased budgets and power, which classic administrative theory ("bureaucratic imperialism") shows that bureaucracies always seek as organizations.

In addition to inherent concerns for truth and justice, revealing 9/11 is the best way to stem this self-perpetuating defense bureaucracy that began after WWII, like Eisenhower said.

Once you understand that your government is willing to engender fear in you for its purposes, is it such a far reach to think they would perpetrate or turn a blind eye to the real perpetrators of the event they used to their advantage? This could also be a pathological phenomenon of bureaucratic imperialism.

So whether you believe in an inside job or not, 9/11 must be addressed, and anyone who addresses it with intellectual honesty has to follow the facts where they lead. None of this prevents other efforts for social justice. Some people might choose 2 or 3 areas -- say environment or racism. What's wrong with replacing one of those with 9/11? Nothing, especially since the effects of the "War on Terror" on the environment and racism are so profound.

false choices...

it is easy to understand why twue bewievers, reichwing fundies, and rethug privateers would accept an 'either/or' proposition to stymy or avoid the subject of nine one one; but it seems counter to everything that (true) progressives hold dear in principle, practice, and political discourse, to couch THEIR refusal to look at -much less address- nine one one, um, anomalies, in terms of 'either this issue, or that issue' (but not both? that's absurd)...
as well as the frighteningly stepford-like insistence that to dare to even breath a hint of dissent about the 'official' story of nine one one, is to sully the memory of those lost, bring untold pain upon the surviving familiy members, and -of course, say the chorus with me- give aid and comfort to the terrorists...
the -ascairt ?- 'progressives' who use this line of 'reasoning', sow the seeds of its own refutation: ie we only have so much 'caring', and it has to be equally divided among a gruppe of issues that progressive poohbahs find acceptable (fuck you, rabble)... uh huh, so just what *is* the magic number of issues that progressives can champion before the whole thing blows up, and who votes on the agenda ? ? ?
of course, it isn't the mere number of issues, or 'diluting' the progressive agenda, or belief in the 'offical' story (which i doubt they have even looked at uncritically), nor the tar-baby fringe theories that so-called debunkers concentrate their attention on; it is due to the ignorance of some, the fear of many, and the -in spite of non-mainstream credentials- fervent desire by most to be taken 'seriously' by THE VERY CORRUPT SYSTEM WE ARE TRYING TO OVERTURN...
in short, they are becoming that which they swore to oppose: The Establishment (tm); thus they will behave accordingly and avoid or minimize inconvenient truths, as well as close ranks when threatened...
i don't think most of our kongresskritters are either complicit or unaware, but i do think they are scared -maybe personally- but more importantly, afraid for whether democracy (such as it is in its debased form) would blow up good, blow up real good...
no, the nancy pelosi's of this world would NEVER investigate -much less bring criminal referrals- of nine one one inside complicity (EVEN IF they had 100% metaphysical proof), 'cause that will rock The System's (tm) boat, and she thinks the boat is more important than the truth is to the paying passengers in the boat...