Why "giggle"? An open letter to the editors and administrators of History Is A Weapon dot com

Why "giggle"? An open letter to the editors and administrators of History as a Weapon dot com:


This morning I followed a link to the 1928 book "Propaganda," by Edward Bernays hosted on your web site ( http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html ) from a post in a forum I help administer. I was delighted to find a copy of this book on-line which details early thinking in the uses of propaganda for manipulating "the public mind." I was also delighted to find your site which, although I'm new to it, is obviously a repository of, as you describe it on your welcome page, "an online Left reader focusing largely on American resistance history." ( http://www.historyisaweapon.org/start.html )

However, as I began to familiarize myself with your site, contemplating spreading the news of its existence to my associates, in the context of addressing what an interested person should do if they have a suggestion for content in your FAQ, I came upon the following comment: "Of course, we reserve the right to giggle that you suggest we post 9/11 conspiracy articles." ( http://www.historyisaweapon.com/faq.html )

I have no argument or problem with the idea that editors or administrators of informational resources have the right, indeed the responsibility, to choose what content they will publish or what issues they will address. What struck me, however, was that this particular subject area was not only singled out as inappropriate (the only one mentioned) but, worse, condescendingly demeaned with your stated right to "giggle" at any suggestion of it. Thus the subject heading of this email -- Why "giggle"?

I am hoping you will take this question seriously and take the time to respect this question with an honest answer. I would sincerely like to know. It isn't that I want to persuade you to reconsider your editorial standards so much as to understand why a "Left reader focusing largely on American resistance history" would choose to publicly single out one specific issue area and simultaneously demean it with the suggestion to your readership that it is so marginal as to be worthy of nothing more than a dismissive "giggle".

This question is of special interest to me given that, in the aforementioned book on "Propaganda" hosted on your web site, Bernays makes clear that it is commonly understood by those who would "control the public mind" (Bernays, 1928, Chapter I, paragraph 4) that, ". . . the group mind does not think in the strict sense of the word. In place of thoughts it has impulses, habits and emotions. In making up its mind its first impulse is usually to follow the example of a trusted leader. This is one of the most firmly established principles of mass psychology. It operates in establishing the rising or diminishing prestige of a summer resort, in causing a run on a bank, or a panic on the stock exchange, in creating a best seller, or a box-office success." (Chapter IV, paragraph 6) One could equally add, I'm sure, that this same firmly established principle of mass psychology applies to the acceptance or rejection of ideas and information as presented by a trusted leader such as yourself, "focusing largely on American resistance history."

After all, I'm sure you will agree that the events of 9/11 were and continue to be some of the most significant in recent US History. Perhaps you will also agree that 9/11 is by definition a conspiracy in the strictly legal sense of, "A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act." Specifically in this instance to commit mass murder. That these events have also been used to further an imperialist agenda through the implementation of radical domestic and foreign policies need hardly be denied by "an online Left reader". From this vantage point, I would think the conspiracy of 9/11 would hardly be something to "giggle" about. The only "theory" involved in this conspiracy is in answer to the question, "Who was behind it?" Who are the conspirators? Radical Muslim fundamentalists -- as the spokes-persons for arguably the most corrupt, secretive and manipulative administration in all of US history and a largely compliant corporate owned media never cease to remind us -- OR, as alternative theories would suggest, some yet to be identified parties who had means, motive and opportunity?

As always when dealing with such matters, the answer to the question has to be, "Which theory best explains most, if not all, the forensic and other accumulated evidence?" For example, IF it can be proven scientifically that the preponderance of evidence indicates that the three buildings destroyed on 9/11 were the result of controlled demolition, not the result of a fire driven gravitational collapse instigated by Boeing aircraft colliding with two of them, THEN we are forced to reject the government/media theory of "Radical Muslim" conspirators because it does not account for and can not be shaped to account for such demolitions.

Of course that "IF" is a big IF and, given the significance of its consequences -- a completely different perception of domestic and foreign policies generally assigned under the heading "The War on Terror" -- should not be adopted absent considerable and verifiable analysis.

I can certainly understand that a web site which perceives "History as a Weapon" would want to sustain the highest editorial standards and not want to foster unfounded or outrageous "conspiracy theories" surrounding the events of 9/11 or any other significant event which has been used to "control the public mind" through the mythologizing manipulation of historical events. And, as I said earlier, I can certainly appreciate that the editors and administrators of a web site have the right to choose what issues they will address or what information they will publish. What I can not understand, however, especially given the focus of your web site, is why it would choose to publicly dismiss all questions related to the events of 9/11 with the stated implication that they are worthy of nothing more than a "giggle."

To my mind, all other forensic considerations aside for the moment, the very fact that Phillip Zelikow was appointed by the Bush administration as the executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, better known as the "9/11 Commission," should be worthy of significant interest -- especially by "an online Left reader focusing largely on American resistance history." Mr. Zelikow not only has close ties with current Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, it is asserted in the recently published book by Philip Shenon, "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation," that Zeklikow kept these ties hidden from the commission, had private conversations with White House political director Karl Rove during his tenure as executive director -- despite a ban on such communication -- and directly "interfered" with the 9/11 Report. (See: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/30/zelikow-interfered/ )

When one adds that Zelikow's academic expertise lies in the history and practice of public policy and that Zelikow has noted that contemporary history "is defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public’s presumptions about its immediate past." Adding, "This idea of 'public presumption'[being] akin to William McNeill’s notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions [being] beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." (Zelikow, "Thinking About Political History," Miller Center Report, Winter 1999, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 5, PDF: http://webstorage1.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/mc/mcreport/vol14_num3.pdf ) -- I would think the editors and administrators, not to mention the readers, of a site focused on "History as a Weapon" would take special interest.

Obviously I certainly agree that history -- especially history as mythologized by government through education and media -- has been and is being used as a propaganda weapon in "controlling the public mind." What will future history make of those of us who have had the courage to ask questions regarding the most profound events in recent American history, demanding answers to our many, and growing questions from an establishment, including a Left leaning establishment, which seems hell bent on keeping our very real and valid questions confabulated with meritless "conspiracy theories"? How will our resistance to the weapons of history being waged today be viewed by the history of tomorrow?

I suppose only time and courage will tell.


F. Michael Wells
aka "painter": Administrator, Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum.

Rob Balsamo, Airline Pilot, Founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth
Kevin Barrett, former university lecturer, founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance
Richard Gage, AIA, founder Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
David Ray Griffin, professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, author, "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press"
Dr. Steven E Jones, Physicist, founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Peter Dale Scott, Professor emeritus, author, "The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America"
Kevin Ryan, Whistelblower, formerly of Underwriters Laboratory
And Others