Conspiracies and Confabulation: Tales from two Naomis
http://www.americanbuddhist.net/conspiracies-and-confabulation-tales-two-naomis
Learning about self-deception is important for all people today. That’s because many of our problems, both as individuals and as a society, are rooted in self-deception, and many of the ways in which others abuse us relate to our inherent tendency to self-deceive. We can overcome these problems, and have a decent chance at long-term survival as a species, only if we learn about such limitations, and strive to control them. One great way to rapidly learn about self-deception, and other forms of deception, is to learn about the events of September 11th.
It’s easy to see wide spread self-deception with regard to 9/11. For one thing, most people don’t know the actual official story, given by the 9/11 Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This is despite the fact that everyone, at least in the US, has invested essentially their entire future in that story, whether they know it or not.
Some have gone beyond simple avoidance of the facts, in an attempt to prevent themselves and others from looking closely at 9/11. These folks have gone to the extent of changing the definitions of common words, engaging in wild speculation and exaggerations, and suggesting that long strings of unprecedented events, including violations of the laws of nature, were possible on just that one day. These painful self-deceptions help some people dodge the emotional stress that accompanies careful examination of the events of 9/11.
In order to understand the extreme self-deception surrounding 9/11, we should first look at how people deceive themselves. There are quite a few ways, in fact, and a good book that describes some of them is Brain Fiction: Self Deception and the Riddle of Confabulation, by William Hirstein.[1] In this well-referenced book, Hirstein describes a continuum of human conditions that relate to self-deception, spanning from clinical confabulation to clinical obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). These conditions can be seen in terms of a gradual increase in “tension”, or amount of knowledge that a person has about the fact that he or she is making false claims. People who have these conditions are described as follows.
Clinical confabulator
Sociopath
Self-deceived person without tension
Normal confabulator
Neutral normal person
Self-deceived person with tension
Lying person
Obsessive-compulsive person
Clinical OCD sufferer
Hirstein explains that normal thinking patterns involve the creation of multiple mental representations for any given situation, which can be either image-like or concept-like in nature. Those representations that are false, or that do not fit with our sense of reality, are culled out before being articulated, by a checking process. Sometimes these critical checking processes do not work, and the affected person can lie easily and with full belief that the false statements he or she is making are in fact true. In those cases, the person is said to be confabulating. But when the checking processes do work, and for whatever reasons false claims are still made, tension is created and the person is considered to be self-deceived.
Hirstein’s book details the fascinating research that supports this representation/checking theory of self-deception and confabulation. Through split-brain experiments, “mind-reading” experiments, and “don’t know” tests, we have learned that people deceive themselves, through physical damage to the brain, and also through other, more natural mechanisms.
At the extreme ends of the self-deception continuum are clinical confabulation, which involves essentially no tension, and clinical OCD, where tension is highest and the checking processes are out of control. Clinical confabulation is a condition in which people make completely false claims but have no idea that they are doing so because the checking processes that prevent such claims are not in place. This can happen through brain damage, to the orbitofrontal cortex specifically. It is in the orbitofrontal cortex that the checking process is thought to occur, although the right parietal cortex has also been implicated in the decision to initiate the checking process.
Sociopathy, and a similar condition called disinhibition, are also caused by damage to the orbitofrontal cortex, and also involve very little tension. In the national discussion on 9/11, we have seen a few people who act as if they are sociopaths, lying easily and with confidence but without regard for the harm caused to others, and apparently without regret. These are the people who aggressively promote and defend the US government’s explanations of what happened that day, even as those explanations change radically, often to the point of contradicting the previous position completely. These adamant defenders of the official story of 9/11 have no regard for the truth or falsity of their claims, or for the fact that they are propping up the one and only source of power for those behind the disastrous 9/11 Wars. Such people might be sociopaths, or they might simply be professional liars.
In any case, when the normal checking processes do work, and the validity of potential claims is checked, false claims are weeded out before being articulated. This is what we see when people are functioning in what the above list calls the “neutral normal” condition. But even people who are considered “normal” tend to make false claims without being aware of it. Apparently this is due to the checking processes being diminished not by physical damage, but by the emotional stress caused by the mental imagery involved.
For example, anosognosia refers to the denial of illness or physical disability. People with anosognosia will confabulate about the loss of an arm or a leg, pretending that the limb is still intact despite being given overwhelming evidence that this is not true. It is simply too emotionally disturbing, at least initially, for such people to admit their disability.
Our representation checking processes have been shown, through electroencephalograph (EEG) experiments, to involve an emotional evaluation first, followed later by a cognitive evaluation. That is, the limbic system is first actuated in response to a potential claim produced by our explanation-producing mechanisms. It is thought that the limbic system (emotional seat) can “distort or eliminate the conscious experience of an emotionally significant event“.[2] In such cases, cognitive evaluation of mental representations is avoided altogether.
In other words, we tend to filter out information that would bring us great emotional pain. In doing so, we leave ourselves with alternative scenarios and stories that do not involve the filtered facts, and that consequently can be quite absurd with respect to reality.
It seems we can all agree that there has been no public event in recent memory that was more “emotionally significant” than 9/11. And we should also be able to agree that our emotional responses to this event have been manipulated and exploited by one of the two primary suspects in the crimes, certain agencies within the US government. Finally, it is apparent that those who still deny the urgent need for the truth about 9/11 have simply avoided any serious cognition on the matter.
This is clear if one considers that, regarding 9/11, where alternative theories do exist the difference between the official story and the alternative accounts boils down to one small but important question. Were government representatives involved in committing these crimes? Those upholding the official account, as given by the 9/11 Commission, are convinced that no government representatives from any nation or locality could possibly have been involved. On the other hand, those promoting the less well-defined alternative theories suggest that government representatives would have had to be involved for the crimes to have succeeded.
This brings us to the milder forms of self-deception in the continuum, and the most prevalent ways in which people self-deceive with regard to 9/11. How are “normal confabulation” and “self-deception with tension” reflected in the national discussion about 9/11? One widespread case of self-deception without tension, or normal confabulation, concerns the recent popular use of the word “conspiracy.”
We all understand the definition of a conspiracy to be a secret plan, among two or more people, to commit a crime. Yet many of us pretend that the definition of the word has changed dramatically since 9/11. It is certain that, unless you believe these crimes were committed by one person acting alone, you believe in a conspiracy about 9/11. But people today have been trained to use the word conspiracy to mean only a small subset of conspiracies enacted by powerful people, like government officials.
For those who make this redefinition, al Queda is not capable of a conspiracy, and moreover, belief in conspiracies committed by powerful people is not rational. We are therefore left with the notion that conspiracies are irrational altogether, despite the fact that our news and our laws are chock-full of conspiracy charges. Additionally, to accept this redefinition, we must close our eyes to the many instances of conspiracy involving powerful US government agencies, like Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which are now a matter of indisputable fact.
Another simple example of tension free self-deception regarding 9/11 concerns the “blowback” theory. This is the idea that certain people in the Middle East, who the US government has been bombing and blockading for many years, might gather up the means and organization to strike back with vengeful acts of otherwise irrational violence, by attacking symbols of western wealth and power. One reason this theory is so obviously confabulatory is that its proponents cling forcefully to it, but yet could never, under any circumstances, consider the “managed blowback” theory. That is, they would never allow the thought that powerful people might notice, and then manipulate, exploit and even promote, such vengeance.
One particularly interesting example of these two simple forms of confabulation, the redefinition of conspiracy and the “blowback but never managed blowback” theory, is found in the book: The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, by Naomi Klein.[3] This book is well written, apparently well researched, and very frightening.
The most interesting aspect of The Shock Doctrine, however, is the way in which Klein handles the idea of a conspiracy surrounding 9/11. After going to great lengths to describe what can only be called a long-term conspiracy to economically exploit (and torture) a string of entire nations, she adds a small disclaimer section near the end of the book saying -- “No conspiracies required.” It’s a bit like reading the bible and struggling through a new section at the end claiming -- “No deities required.”
In this disclaimer section, which might have been added simply to ensure the book got published and promoted, Klein goes on to suggest that “The truth is at once less sinister and more dangerous [than the 9/11 conspiracy].” She struggles slightly in an effort to explain that --“wars waged for control over scarce resources…create terrorist blowback.” The ideas here are clearly meant to separate the book from any implication that certain powerful people, in the wars they have recently created to seize control of scarce resources, could ever have helped along (or managed) the events that were absolutely needed to initiate the whole process.
But again, to give Klein some credit, she does not resort to what I would call the larval stage of confabulation regarding 9/11. That is, she doesn’t suggest that those people who have ruled and abused us so completely for the past eight years are simply too stupid to have been involved in 9/11. Believe it or not, a number of those who call themselves intellectuals in America have proposed this utterly ridiculous and embarrassing self-deception. Instead, Klein observes that those engaging in economic shock and disaster capitalism are quite shrewd. She mentions Donald Rumsfeld as part of this clever group.
A second good example of what appears to be self-deception about 9/11, this time with tension, comes from another Naomi. In this case it is Naomi Wolf, who recently wrote an essay entitled “A Conspiracy So Immense”, that found its way into an interesting collection of non-US publications.[4] This short essay seems somewhat cathartic and sensational, and appears to be have been published only one day after an impromptu interview was posted on the internet, in which Wolf was asked to answer questions about 9/11 before she had time to pause and filter.[5]
In the essay, the tension is quite noticeable, as Wolf is much less confident and more defensive than she appears in other writings and presentations. She begins with an exaggeration, suggesting that any conspiracy regarding 9/11 would have had to be “immense”, as in the “vast” conspiracy so often referred to by the corporate media. Of course, Wolf gives us no idea how immense such a conspiracy would need to be in her estimation. The added adjective seems to be only a reflection of the emotion she is feeling in the moment.
Paradoxically, Wolf’s “immense” term does not apply to al Queda, a group that we’re told is at once a small band of incompetent misfits, and when needed, are so widespread around the globe that you can’t swing a stick without hitting one at scene of the latest terrorist incident. The official line is that al Queda has supremely elusive franchises in every politically sensitive area, at least those related to the production of oil and natural gas. They even have a “media arm” it is said, that distributes so many politically timely videos it makes one think they must employ a DC lobbyist-run marketing outfit as well. In any case, for a tense Naomi Wolf, al Queda is not immense but any other possible group of conspirators would definitely have to be.
Unfortunately, Wolf’s essay also uses smear campaign tactics by suggesting that people calling for the truth about 9/11 must be anti-semitic. Of course, this unsubstantiated accusation is not only false, but is also at odds with the fact that a good number of Jewish people are involved in calling for the truth about 9/11.
Wolf’s essay uses several other techniques used by those who seem to be experiencing tension over 9/11 truth. She degrades those questioning the official story by first putting them in quotes – “”The 9/11 Truth Movement””, thereby implying they are either not real, or are not legitimate. She then quickly adds that “conspiracy theories surface where people are poorly educated and a rigorous press is lacking.” Wolf goes on to explain why such a large and growing number of people are interested in learning the truth about 9/11, suggesting that such “conspiracy theories” are “psychologically more comforting.”
The truth, of course, is plainly the opposite. As a group, those questioning the official story of 9/11 are at least as well educated as those who accept the official story without question. But certainly it is not comforting to consider that elements of your own government might have been involved in the worst terrorist crime in the history of your country. What is even less comforting is the inevitable conclusion that the terrorists might actually be running your country as it is being destroyed in nearly every way, and that any future terrorist activity would therefore be unstoppable (and perhaps irrelevant).
What might be comforting, for some, is the idea that those poor people who just happen to live on the last remaining oil-rich land will always be the only terrorists. That would be convenient in any case. And it is also the kind of improbable story that the human mind is left with, when it cannot face the emotional pain of more truthful information it is receiving, and working to ignore.
It is clear that those who work to ignore or downplay the urgent need for the truth about 9/11 are the ones who are exhibiting psychological weakness, often making claims that are directly in opposition to known facts. That is, they confabulate and self-deceive in order to avoid emotional trauma. We have seen this happen with people from all kinds of backgrounds, including highly intelligent, and otherwise honest people.
Maintaining self-deception about 9/11 is not easy though. It requires people to ignore the fact that the ever-changing official story of 9/11 was created (and repeatedly re-created) by representatives of the Bush Administration, who we know have lied to us on many occasions. Additionally, continued self-deception about 9/11 involves ignoring a huge number of other startling facts. These include the fact that the US national air defenses shut down for nearly two hours only on that one morning, and insider trading occurred without any insiders, and three tall buildings fell through the path of most resistance, when no such things have ever occurred before or since.
The two Naomis are not alone, to be sure. We all confabulate and self-deceive and we do so regularly. In fact, more powerful people sometimes work to exploit that fact of human nature. Our best chance at avoiding such exploitation is to notice the self-deceptive tendencies in ourselves, and prioritize education in relation to them. With 9/11, we have an opportunity to do just that, by witnessing the most glaring and widespread examples of self-deception in our time. That's why 9/11 truth has such a powerful potential to effect real change in our society.
[1] Hirstein 2005, Brain Fiction: Self-Deception and the Riddle of Confabulation, MIT Press
[2] Halgren & Marinkovic 1995, Neurophysicological networks integrating human emotions, The Cognitive Neurosciences, ed. M.S. Gazzaniga, MIT Press
[3] Klein 2007, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Metropolitan Books
[4] Wolf 2008, A Conspiracy So Immense, first published in The Guatemala Times, http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/syndicated/the-next-wave/483-a-conspiracy-so-immense.html . Publication followed at a number of English news sites in Muslim countries, including the Daily News (Egypt), the Cyprus Mail, the Burma Digest, the Khaleej Times, and the New Nation (Bangladesh).
[5] We are Change LA, Naomi Wolf delivers a message for the Truth and Accountability Movement to WeAreChangeLA, 10/29/08 http://www.911blogger.com/node/18324
- Kevin Ryan's blog
- Login to post comments
Eye opener
BerkshireTruth
Didn't need any coffee this Sunday morning. This piece was a real eye-opener. Kevin really knows how to boil down things to their essence. Is that what a chemist does?
One addition: The title of the piece should have "Part 1" appended to it. Why?
As Kevin writes: "We all confabulate and self-deceive and we do so regularly. In fact, more powerful people sometimes work to exploit that fact of human nature. Our best chance at avoiding such exploitation is to notice the self-deceptive tendencies in ourselves, and prioritize education in relation to them."
Agreeing with Mr. Ryan's analysis, how do we "prioritize education" to deal with essentially good, smart, yet recalcitrant people? That should be "Part 2" of this analytical process. I've had too many encounters with people who say "Everything you say is true, but I still don't believe it."
"Part 3" should be the application of the educational curriculum we've developed in part 2.
I guess the devil's in the details...
Thanks again, Kevin.
Thought-provoking!
Nice article, Kevin. Some really good points here.
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.com
Do we have any animation specialists in the house?
This may be crazy or beyond the scope of what is possible but....
Remember the Grammar Rock/ Schoolhouse Rock series that ran on Saturday Mornings when we were kids. (I am 48, so I am referring to the mature truthers)(the series ran in early 70s, as I recall)
"Conjunction Junction, What's your function?" "Quite interesting, a nouns a person place or thing" "I am just a bill, stuck on capitol hill"
They did a spoof of one several years ago, singing about media consolidation and and conflicts of interests by their corporate ownership..GE, Westinghouse, Disney etc.. It has been floating around the net.
Well.. the word Confabulation and it's meaning could be illustrated in this way in reference to the truth about 911.
I know ideas are a dime a dozen and doing the work is where the rubber meets the road, but I just thought I would throw it out there to see if there are animators and musical people who might think it is an idea worth trying.
duplicated
deleted
link to youtube page with schoolhouse rock videos
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=schoolhouse+rock&search_type...
I found the spoof one which is ironically titled "Conspiracy Theory Rock". It was a TV Fun House video from SNL's
Robert Smigel. I think it was supposed to be making fun of Conspiracy Theories, but much of it was the truth. Maybe it was intended to be disinfo, mixing the truth with the ridiculous and framing it all as ridiculous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbIvPhZ3IsQ
another link to the same video in case that one doesn't work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PHmu1gl1J0
I just see confabulation as such a great concept which talks directly to the resistance met when trying to get through to those who are clinging to the official myth. Denial is also a relevant word.
duplicated so deleted
deleted
Stupidity and conformity
Social, or psychosocial, factors may be more important than individual psychology. I guess the discomfort of cogntive dissonance is caused by social pressure to conform.
Klein is conforming to progressive consensus. I think it is intellectually weak and dishonest. I also think it is immoral to take the extremely questionable official story at face value where the consequences are so serious.
Well said,
and agreed.
I hope that you and yours are well.
Excellent analysis of the psychological issues
Kevin,
This piece is superb. It is based on some pretty respectable research and theorizing in psychology. To suggest that it is psychobabble, as did another poster, is ill-informed.
I am not an expert in cognitive psychology, but did go to graduate school and study this stuff, and have kept up to some extent with emerging trends over the last 3 decades.
http://www.TheProgressiveMind.info
Mike Zimmer
psychobabble?
Kevin's piece is very informing and explains a lot for me. I have been a bit baffled by intelligent people who just can not get their brains around 9/11, while I've talked with many ordinary folks who will readily say that "yeah, I know it was an inside job all the way". It's a mental thing.
And, BTW, people who say it's psychobabble are really expressing that they can not understand what is presented and they wish they could and feel inadequate because of it.
Thanks so much Kevin--keep up the good work. We all grow our understanding of this thing with information like this.
KMW
What is "lying?"
Just reacting to one sentence in here. You state that "Sometimes these critical checking processes do not work, and the affected person can lie easily and with full belief that the false statements he or she is making are in fact true." Maybe it's just semantics, but it seems like lying requires an intent to deceive, either by deliberately stating falsehoods or deliberately omitting truths in order to try to manipulate impressions away from what the liar believes to be true. This latter area seems like a particularly fruitful source of criticism for the 9/11 Commission and NIST.
I'm just reacting to one sentence in this post, and am looking forward to a closer read for your valuable essay here. Confabulation, whatever that is, and 'lying,' seem to be mutually exclusive. But for now I'd just like to toss out another great source of broader perspective on the 9/11 issues, a book by Sissela Bok, called Lying. see http://www.florin.com/authors/bok-lying.html
The first lie is to oneself,
this then allows the person to "believe" they are "being truthful" when they lie to others.
I think this form of cognitive dissonance is closely followed by willful ignorance, this allows otherwise very intelligence people (i.e. certain prominent authors) to avoid expressing an opinion or answering a question simply by stating that they don't know enough about the issue or event. When it comes to the events of 9/11/01, this particular dodge is inexcusable after seven years, imo.
We need to be patient as we draw these people out of their self-created protective cocoons. A steady and friendly education process is required.
Be well.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
Interesting.
Interesting. The concept of willful ignorance brings to mind a component of criminal negligence, the concept of 'willful blindness.' That certainly seems likely to have been operating in a variety of ways among some of those we were paying to secure our security on 9/11.
As soon as the ignorance becomes willful, 'express intent' to deceive doesn't have to be around for culpability. Especially when people choose to lie to themselves, or to be willfully ignorant, as a matter of perceived self-interest, e.g. given risks to reputation, etc.
Your wife is cheating on you........
........no she's not, she loves me..........your brother is sexually abusing your little sister -- he would never do that.................your father and grandfather have been hit men for the mafia for years -- no way, they are the most caring family men I have ever known.
As with these scenarios, 9/11 brings with it a host of emotional traumas to which the average person finds themselves victim at no fault of their own. But how does someone rise above a personal crisis and retain or regain their self worth and personal dignity? It happens in many ways -- faith, religion, years of professional counseling or simply vis-a-vis the love of a family member, friend or significant other. Ultimately, resolution begins by TRUSTING someone who won't violate that trust. But regarding 9/11, who should someone trust, the guy in black on a street corner holding a "911 Truth Now" sign and screaming America sucks into a megaphone? This is the crux of the 9/11 dilemma. The 9/11 plot eradicates most, if not all of the traditional options for resolution. As you eloquently point out, self deception and confabulation are protective mechanisms when confronting emotional trauma. Specifically relating to 9/11, alternative explanations inherently attack the common notion that our government is basically good, that even in our imperfect way, our country is based on certain moral principals, and that even if some people in government have evil intentions, our checks and balances can and will root out any evil. The very nature of our critique of 9/11 is an attack, even if we don't intend it to be one. IMO we need to constantly be aware that our message can be construed as an attack and always strive to disarm that aspect. For example, flying lots of American flags and using the Peace symbol or a dove at our public gatherings is a good way to counter that aspect, publicly.
One of the main points of this essay seems to be that everyone is at risk when it comes to self-deception. This is true. But the root cause is not an evil one. On the contrary, it is based on people's trust and belief in good citizenry and nationalism grounded in a common morality. So willingly or unwillingly, our thesis on 9/11 discredits most people's convictions, which are basically good. This is Robin Hordon's mantra in promoting civil informationing -- and more and more I think he is right. It's not OUR job to discern the moral implications for others. It's our job to get the information out to everybody and compassionately work with all of their questions to the best of our ability, trusting that "the better angels of their nature" will figure it out. As with professional counseling, the trusting role a counselor performs is only temporary -- only long enough to get the person to trust him(her)self. Anyone who has ever had counseling knows that the counselor does very little talking. Does that describe the 911 truth movement?
So as far as Naomi and Naomi are concerned, I say keep sending them solid information (prioritized education, as you like to call it), stop confronting them and let them figure it out on their own. Ultimately, people don't want to feel alone in their beliefs, especially if those beliefs are counter-cultural (with the exception being those who are attracted to certain beliefs BECAUSE they are counter-cultural). So simply, I guess I am agreeing with you, with my interpretation being: A lot less information to a lot more people. IMHO, it is impossible to get 300 million Americans to agree on 130 omissions and distortions in the official 9/11 story. If the country is really as corrupt as many of us think, we are going to need each other -- everyone -- to help make it right. So let's keep it simple.
Thanks, Kevin. This may turn into an interesting and useful thread.
Thanks!
>>One great way to rapidly learn about self-deception, and other forms of deception, is to learn about the events of September 11th.
Excellent segue . . .
>>Yet many of us pretend that the definition of the word has changed dramatically since 9/11. It is certain that, unless you believe these crimes were committed by one person acting alone, you believe in a conspiracy about 9/11. But people today have been trained to use the word conspiracy to mean only a small subset of conspiracies enacted by powerful people, like government officials.
Great point. We've also redefined the reality of how polling works . . in 2000 and 2004 . . . it worked before, doesn't work now . . . therefore it never worked. Orwellian redefinitions of reality.
>>One reason this theory is so obviously confabulatory is that its proponents cling forcefully to it, but yet could never, under any circumstances, consider the “managed blowback” theory. That is, they would never allow the thought that powerful people might notice, and then manipulate, exploit and even promote, such vengeance.
Great point!
>>the larval stage of confabulation regarding 9/11. That is, she doesn’t suggest that those people who have ruled and abused us so completely for the past eight years are simply too stupid to have been involved in 9/11.
I love that, the larval stage of confabulation regarding 9/11 . . . the "too stupid" claim. That's right folks, those billionaires deciding who lives and dies are complete morons! They can't even speak English right, let alone manage an entire GOVERNMENT . . . What a scam . . . "larval" is perfect.
>>Paradoxically, Wolf’s “immense” term does not apply to al Queda
Yes, you are catching some of the best logical fallacies in one essay here very nicely.
>>What might be comforting, for some, is the idea that those poor people who just happen to live on the last remaining oil-rich land will always be the only terrorists.
Indeed . . . like fast food, it's all about comfort, and many Americans will kill themselves with "comforts". Look what they'll do at a Walmart. How embarrassing for the rest of us, to see that headline go around the world of US shoppers ripping doors off a Walmart to get and then trample a person to death in the process. Self-delusions and fragile self-worth . . .
Great essay, I really enjoyed it.
great article, thanks for posting, Kevin
i hope you submit to the AMA and APA and other journals
Question- i haven't seen this spelling before: " al Queda"- but a google shows it's in use, just far less common than "al Qaeda"- what's the significance?
http://911reports.com
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2008/08/911-activists-start-your-own-91...
Thank-you Kevin
I greatly appreciate this article. I can empathize with people "in denial" who don't want to look or become responsible for facts/information that they can't cope with it. I think we all are in that situation to some degree. I know because I have stuck my neck out on 9/11, and I am often approached by people with "bigger issues" that they would like me to champion and some of them I certainly have no desire to plunge into nor speak out on. I have my own "comfort zone" which means I think that the 9/11 issue is one I can tackle, and deal with, and speak out on, but I don't feel comfortable speaking out on MK Ultra's mind control program, military systemic sex abuse of children, or UFO's.
There are people who have so many personal challenges that they can't deal with problems that are beyond their control. There are people who are in a struggle for survival and need to focus on basics- food, healthcare, rent...
Then, there are some people who are blessed with a safe situation and have money, time, a supportive family, friends, who can think and act on issues beyond themselves. I think those who are privileged in a world overwhelmed by serious inequities, injustices, and serious problems have a greater responsibility to become aware and contribute towards solving problems, rather than supporting an oppressive system. I think this is why we do encounter so much resistance, awareness poses a real moral dilemma and demands great courage and spirit. Sometimes people have it or find it, and join us in the struggle, but it is too much for others to even contemplate, and they'd rather flee than examine the evidence. I think we have to be very gentle with the ones that are most frightened, and happen to be our closest friends, spouses, and family.
Carol Brouillet
http://www.communitycurrency.org
In part
I would guess their attitude is due to the failure of such people to delve into the details. AFAICT, Chomsky, Zinn, Wolfe and Klein have never examined 9/11 in detail. Rather, their views seem to be based on generalities.
Great post - Thanks,
Great post - Thanks, Kevin.
Very timely for me with some family members . . . .that don't know what they don't know, and probably won't even read this eye-opening essay if I gave it to them printed on gold leaf.
"In order that all men might be taught to speak truth, it is necessary that all likewise should learn to hear it."
-- Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
Thanks Kevin
Thanks for addressing the subtext beneath the thinking of these two fine journalists. Isn't it time for a "Psychologists 9/11 Conference:Understanding Public Perception Behind September 11" ?
I am so tired of the subtle and not so subtle attacks by progressives on the Truth Movement. In some sense, attacks coming from these sources ought to be addressed with more intensity then the usual crap we have to deal with from the official story bearers.
Kevin
""Wolf goes on to explain why such a large and growing number of people are interested in learning the truth about 9/11, suggesting that such “conspiracy theories” are “psychologically more comforting.”
The truth, of course, is plainly the opposite."
Really a fine article, Kevin. Very well thought out. Thanks.
Thanks Kevin,
I like to comment 911Peacenik's comment and suggest something that could be Naomi Wolf's motivation.
1. Inspiring comment, 911Peacenik!
a. One point is predetermined conclusions and required loyality. If the predetermined conclusion is that the American government is good, then 9/11 truth is at odds with that.
«Specifically relating to 9/11, alternative explanations inherently attack the common notion that our government is basically good, that even in our imperfect way, our country is based on certain moral principals, and that even if some people in government have evil intentions, our checks and balances can and will root out any evil. The very nature of our critique of 9/11 is an attack, even if we don't intend it to be one.»
Your father is sexually abusing your little sister – claiming that would be interpreted as an attack on your father, because the predetermined conclusion is that fathers are good and don't do such things.
(You hate your father, that's why you claim such things!) So evidence doesn't matter, because everybody is assuming that everybody is working from predetermined conclusions, that they from the a priori assumption that fathers are good and that we from the a priori assumption that our father is bad. Moreover, claiming the truth in that case could be interpreted as being against fatherhood as such. Claiming that the government is attacking its «own» people will be interpreted as an attack on the country (anti-americanism), because the predetermined conclusion is that we are living in democracies. (We are labeled sick minds because the facts we are telling are not compatible with their belief in a good – but perhaps incompetent – government.) Loyality is required!
b. I agree that flying American flags and appearing "patriotic" would be a much better way than «the guy in black on a street corner holding a "911 Truth Now" sign and screaming America sucks into a megaphone». Flying American flags would look less like working from predetermined conclusions (predetermined by hate or paranoia or being conpiracy minded, you name it).
2. Now to the two Naomis:
First Kevin's interesting comment about Naomi Klein: «The most interesting aspect of The Shock Doctrine, however, is the way in which Klein handles the idea of a conspiracy surrounding 9/11. After going to great lengths to describe what can only be called a long-term conspiracy to economically exploit (and torture) a string of entire nations, she adds a small disclaimer section near the end of the book saying -- “No conspiracies required.” It’s a bit like reading the bible and struggling through a new section at the end claiming -- “No deities required.”
In this disclaimer section, which might have been added simply to ensure the book got published and promoted...»
Then Naomi Wolf about her situation this autumn:
«Almost everyone I work with on projects related to this campaign for liberty has been experiencing computer harassment: emails are stripped, messages disappear. That's not all: people's bank accounts are being tampered with: wire transfers to banks vanish in midair. I personally keep opening bank accounts that are quickly corrupted by fraud. Money vanishes. Coworkers of mine have to keep opening new email accounts as old ones become infected. And most disturbingly to me personally is the mail tampering I have both heard of and experienced firsthand. My tax returns vanished from my mailbox. All my larger envelopes arrive ripped straight open apparently by hand. When I show the postman, he says "That's impossible." Horrifyingly to me is the impact on my family. My childrens' report cards are returned again and again though perfectly addressed; their invitations are turned back; and my daughters many letters from camp? Vanished. All of them. Not one arrived. Try explaining that to a smart thirteen year old. Try explaining it in a way that still makes her feel secure and comfortable.»
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10429)
So perhaps, I underscore perhaps, Wolf's comments on 911 is her "disclaimer". (OK, you stop harassing my children and I add a disclaimer when it comes to the 911-attacks...)
Insightful, articulate and immovable respose...but the DOTS
Kevin, this is such a great piece of work that I, from a position of much less education than you, can substantiate by being in the streets at least once a week for over two years now supporting 9/11 Truth for Peace. I deliberately put myself in the midst of average, if not politically hostile gatherings of people...and I can substantiate all the detailed psychological explanaitions that you make. But its in a very realworld and completely pedestrian way. Most Truthers who work the streets will undoubtedly agree. So, this work helps build a bridge between the higher academic's perspectives of informing "volunteer citizens" about 9/11 usually acccomplished in books, theaters and auditoriums, and us street people who deal with "involuntary citizens" who we meet in our civil activisms. So, this is really great...and much thanks!
BUT...here are some realworld DOTS:
Informing the public as a collective in this country happens mostly through print media, the TV media, the radio media, and the publishing media.
...We are well aware that the print media is hooked up with corporatocracy so much so that they abandoned their responsibilities to this country and helped run-up into the war by doing LESS than asking questions...they deliberately asked "fawning" questions that stirred people to support the war. [if I may steal from brother McGovern]...so...DOT...DOT...DOT
...We also know that the TV media is also hooked into the corporatocracy and that CNN was just muddling along until they got a chance to bring Gulf War I to the citizens 24/7 in the early 90s. The first Iraq War virtually established CNN as legitimate. And, we also know that FAUXNEWS is nothing more than a news? channel that exists principally because of CNN's successful rise due to a war and they simply followed suit coming into existence BECAUSE of Gulf War II. Hence all the brass readily supplied by the Pentagon in a massive "product placement", recruiting and war-justification scheme...so...DOT...DOT...DOT...
...We may not actually understand what's hapeneing in the radio media other than the crap that right wing radio spurts out constantly. From my view, one underreported and clevery hidden radio agenda was Richard Green's "Clout"-9/11 Radio Thursdays" in that it set its own ending date hoping to END the national discussion after four Thursdays and NOT to continue the debate as was "suggested" by Greene, or "dreamt of" by Truthers. AirAmericaRadio is deeply biased and much of the on-air and behind the scenes talent departed the network as a result of the station's stance on the Israel-Lebanon dust-up a few years back. Callers into AAR were challenging the owner's postion on the war and were SO furiously opposed to the position taken by AAR ownership that Franken, who exposed his true allegiances during that conflict, and Springer were soon off the air and the unbiased talent got outta there ...so...DOT...DOT...DOT
Another DOT about radio comes from the shaping of PBS in general and NPR specifically shifting away from being more publically funded as was the case in its inception decades ago, into being funded/controlled by wealthy donors, military contractors, and/or other HUGE corporations. The more insideous element here are the influences of wealthy private donors...who, if the programming doesn't work the way they want, call up and threaten to cut off their donations which are required to keep any of their programming alive. In Boston, where I lived nearby for over 50 years, I saw and can report from my view that eventually, once anything was broadcast on NPR or the local radio NPR outlet, WBUR, which exposed some truths about the middle east ongoing wars and occupations, the funding was IMMEDIATELY cut off until the "preferred" messaging was reinstituted...so...DOT...DOT...DOT...
Regarding 9/11, Pacifica radio is barely holding its own...NOVAM is formed by the same offshoot from AAR and is somewhat open...but only by Malloy, and that's only upon occasion...and Rodgers is quite "democratic party-ish" ...ie: Stephanie Miller and Ed T-Boone Shultz. You know the party...its the one that excluded former President Jimmy Carter from speaking at Obama's Democratic Convention in Denver because he wrote a book about the Israeli-Palestinian issue that WASN'T comfortable to those at the top of the Democratic Party...so...DOT...DOT...DOT...
...And most of the 9/11 authors have had to find small daring publishing houses that are not "connected" to the major publishing houses on Mahattan. The messaging here...write about 9/11 Truth in ways that the larger publishing houses don't approve of, and you do not get published by a major publishing house.
So, in the end, it is so abundently clear that Klein and Wolf in writing their stuff that is tangential but obviously connected to 9/11, are under tremendous tension because they have to write stuff about 9/11 in ways that make it past their censors. I'm not outing them as Truthers...I am stating that nobody can write anout history in the last few decades WITHOUT considering 9/11 as being a HUGE palyer in the events...almost ALL the events affecting the world...so...DOT...DOT...DOT...
And that they have been able to make some broader connections without obviously connecting the DOTS and thusly opening them up to censorship is to me, a good effort on their part.
Obviously, with Chomsky's , and now Zinn's statements that they don't "care" about the events of 9/11, I suspect that its THEIR way of dealing with the truths about 9/11.
9/11 Truths match up so perfectly with most of the "histories" that they are so famous for understanding and writing about that they need some form of dissociation for that particular conundrum.
Intellectually all of these people...aka...left gatekeepers...are cornered, so they have to say SOMETHING that gets them off the hot stove top without eliminating their next meals.
Thanks again Kevin...we have to create and sustain an assault that matches every level of public educational level and political awareness and this is an awsome effort to help us all in understanding our intended audiences.
Love, Peace and Progress
...with PUBLICALLY FUNDED ELECTIONS ....................Obama got 60% from Wall street...
...using HAND COUNTED PAER BALLOTS......................there still are problems with the voting systems...
...on a NEW PAID FEDERAL VOTING HOLIDAY...............if we like democracy so much, lets show it...
Robin Hordon
astute observation Robin
I agree that there is pressure or as you say "tension" involved. I have to think that both Naomis must see the truth. I still applaud them both for what they are willing to stick their necks out for. They are both brave and brilliant.
Well worth distributing
Superb essay! Send to academics, clerics and penetrable media folk.
I have made it into an A5 booklet, ideal for mailing, available as a PDF from www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=ac1039fd00817eecd2db6fb9a8902bda
You can hear the process of denial in action in the radio debate between Richard Gage and Dr Michael Shermer. I recommend this for distribution as an audio CD, with building industry professionals and scientists as added recipients. Get the mp3 from
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/1...
Thanks Kevin
Thanks for breaking this down in such a manageable way. This article is a great one for outreach. Great work (again!)
V for Visibility!
--------------------------------
www.visibility911.com
www.2ndResponders.org
Great Article
The 9/11 Truth Movement has the most thoughtful and philosophical people.
I think Klein knows that 9/11 was an inside job.
I saw her get confronted by We Are Change here in Pdx, Or. about a year ago, She replied by saying that she didn't believe the 9/11 commission report, that she doesn't put anything past the Bush administration, and thought there ought to be another investigation, "but I only write what I can prove."
Granted, she's enormously talented and could have spent the research time and money that she put into the Shock Doctrine into 9/11 research.
However, I think she deliberately chose to follow the broader pattern and expose the men behind the curtain for their grander scheme. After all, the globalist agenda was just entering a new theater with 9/11, but that's not where it started. And Klein does a fantastic job on the bloody crimes of the Iraq war as well as the patterns of covert intervention and economic warfare that have been perpetrated against the entire world and are now coming home.
I'm sure that Klein is well aware of the poisonous media landscape surrounding 9/11 issues as well, given that her mother-in-law, Michelle Landsberg, was writing stories questioning 9/11 several years ago at the Toronto Star: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN305A.html
In the case of the Shock Doctrine, it's so well put together, so well documented and so well timed that it really hit the media puppets where they weren't prepared and really gave them no ammo to fire back with.
When the bailouts started happening, suddenly all kinds of left media are calling Naomi Klein and she is talking about how crisis are exploited and sometimes manufactured and exploited to push through the policies that benefit only the few. This is something that I'm very glad that Americans are hearing on Democracy Now! and the Colbert Report, and etc.
I got the chance to see Klein again about two months ago at Pacific University as well. She told that crowd, "You're supposed to believe that John McCain is another 4 years of Bush, but the truth is that Obama will be another four years of Bush."
Two people clapped at that statement amidst a sea of blinking confounded eyes.
But here we are three weeks after the election and we already are going to retain Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, his Defense Secretary, and his wars. What (if any) change will be left for January?
Anyhow, I think it's worth noting that Klein stated "No conspiracies required.", not "No conspiracies allowed." She never makes any of the typical smears that others in the media have. There's no enmity in that statement.
I'm sure others will disagree, but I think Naomi Klein is a natural if un-aligned ally of the truth movement.
~Markov
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
~George Orwell
If she only writes what she can prove
she should not mention 9/11 at all. Instead, she calls it "terrorist blowback," implicitly taking an unproven story at face value, in the face of many wel known facts showing that story is unproven.
I get your point, but......
she obviously feels she can "prove" blowback theory better than inside job theory. The notion of "sticking to what you can prove" is admirable and the #1 tenet of responsible journalism, and we need to respect both of them for at least attempting to honor that. Is this not Kevin Ryan's position? Steven Jones? David Ray Griffin? Ray McGovern? Isn't this the problem we have Fetzer, Wood and the Web Fairy -- the reason why most of us here avoid space beam theory? It's not because we think it's implausible, but because it's unprovable and unsubstantiated. We need to learn how to work with people like Naomi and Naomi and find common ground and a starting point to explore things further with them. All too often our confrontations are attempts to prove them wrong or convert them to our way of thinking. It's called bad communication -- agenda driven dialogue -- and we can be as guilty of it as much as anyone. Regarding getting our message across, I fall back on advice given by a professional advertising executive and community activist: "Being right doesn't count for much in this world, but being able to communicate the essence of your idea counts for everything." Our real adversaries, the 9/11 perps, know this all too well -- much better than we do.
Thanks Kevin
You present highly credible analysis that should be seen by all who spread the truth and encounter this type of illogical resistance.
No conspiracy required
BerkshireTruth
I have the paperback edition of Klein's book and I cannot find the "disclaimer section" in the book. Anyone else find it?
Not here
Maybe the essay needs the words 'its as if ...' before 'she adds' when referring to the disclaimer section, at least the one that I can't find in my paperback edition either, even when looking at all the references to 9/11 in the index.
What is lost. ..
... shall be found. See p. 539, as per Kevin's note below. I'm not Worthy!
Meanwhile, Monbiot
Meanwhile, George Monbiot, another of the allegedly progressive voices who has not only support the official story but attacked the 9/11 truth movement in his writings, may at least be getting one of our basic understandings straight. Regarding Bush's 'midnight regulations' relating to the enviroment, he says of the administration's environmental record:
'...this last binge of vandalism is also the Bush presidency reduced to its essentials. Destruction is not an accidental product of its ideology. Destruction is the ideology. Neoconservatism is power expressed by showing that you can reduce any part of the world to rubble.'
What? You mean you no longer think this record is the result of bumbling incompetence, by people too incompetent to have pulled off 9/11?
Parroting consensus
is not responsible journalism, where the consensus so obviously does not explain what happened.
Whoops, this was reply to 911peacenik.
Thanks
...for all the good comments.
I strongly recommend Klein's book, and have lent it out to friends who have lent it out to friends, etc. She helped me see some of my own self-deceptions actually. Because I know she is a good sport, I encourage you to actually buy a copy like I did. Note that the section referred to is on page 539 (you can find it on google books or the amazon search feature also).
I'm also supportive of Wolf, although I personally prefer a less sensational approach than what I've seen from her. She appears very confident, brave and articulate most of the time. That's why her new essay was so unusual.
My essay has been censored at (so far) one "progressive" site, with the editor telling me that the Naomis were being attacked. I do not agree with that assessment, of course, and feel that one of the important points to take away from this is that even the best of us engage in self-deception.
A part II is likely. Thanks again.
What motivates journalists to do hit-pieces against 9/11 Truth?
There is a Dec 11th 2008 911Blogger posting of a France 2 “Hit-piece” against AE911Truth and other truthers.
The question arose how these reporters can defy every rule of objective and informative journalism, and continue to produce such blatant (criminal) disinformation.
I argued that they seem NOT to be manipulated from outside forces, but rather acting in irrational and deluded ways to protect the projection of reality that they themselves have spent so much time building up, promoting and associating with their own Narcissistic image.
Similarly, in medicine, we are often confronted with old farts in academia fighting back viciously like desperate children to keep their old understanding of physiology protected against newer currents of understanding. The University is not paying them to hold back the advancement of science or of medical understanding for all that they are worth. They just do it – to ensure that the sky they have spent a considerable effort to conceptualize over their head doesn’t come tumbling down on them.
When treating a patient in acute psychosis (detachment from reality) it is not recommended to give any credit to his/her erroneous line of thinking, but simply give very down to earth answers of where his/her thinking is off-track. One must do this in a respectful way though: the patient is sick and afraid. A total non-acknowledgment of his/her projected universe would be a dreadful blow to the patient’s narcissistic image: he/she needs to be received in an empathetic way, understanding how the patient could have been misled to such an erroneous line of thinking.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Beeth
Note: this is a bit of a re-hash of my answer to a comment: Désinfo ou "info-tox" are French words for "désinformation", http://www.911blogger.com/node/18798#comment-202181 I thought it was relevant in this discussion about self deception.
Love from Brussels
"unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory. If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us - the dignity of man." (Harold Pinter)
"A conspiracy so immense" by Naomi Wolf
First published in The Guatemala Times in October 2008.
http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/syndicated/the-next-wave/483-a-conspiracy-so-immense.html
Publication followed at a number of English news sites in Muslim countries, including the Daily News (Egypt), the Cyprus Mail, the Burma Digest, the Khaleej Times, and the New Nation (Bangladesh)
Here's an excerpt:
"Similarly, the "9/11 Truth Movement" asserts that al-Qaeda's attack on the Twin Towers was an "inside job."
Usually, conspiracy theories surface where people are poorly educated and a rigorous independent press is lacking.
The real problem with this frantic conspiracy theorizing is that it leaves citizens emotionally agitated but without a solid ground of evidence upon which to base their worldview, and without constructive directions in which to turn their emotions. "