Are Truthers' accusations against Silverstein based on latent anti-Semitism?

[1337m4n]

I could not agree more. The skepticism does appear conditional. I was thinking of starting a thread myself but I was not sure where to post it. It should be a requirement that if a charge of bigotry, racism, anti-semitism is made against a member, there must be evidence for such a charge. Without it, the charge should be retracted and an apology made. This isn't a casual insult. I can't imagine too many people here would take kindly to being called a jew hater.

Nobody has called you jew hater.

I am saying that the root basis of the accusations against Silverstein are the anti-Semitic leaders of the Truth Movement, and that a large number of other Truthers parrot these leaders blindly.

Granted, the fact that you take indignation at being called a jew-hater while at the same time steadfastly refusing to actually DENY it is highly suspicious, so I can't say I blame anyone who suspects you are a jew-hater. But it's not proof.

 

[1337m4n]

Sorry bud, I'm still not buying it.

By analogy - the vast majority of schizophrenics smoke cigarettes. Why don't we ban cigarettes? We'd probably cure schizophrenia!

You can't make this shut and dry, because there are at least a million confounding factors. They're swimming in the countercultural stream, so maybe they're statistically predisposed to anti-semitism, but in individual cases you're making a leap. Their inability to coherently explain their suspicions doesn't concretely further your case - although it certainly doesn't rule it out. You don't have a control case - a tower which wasn't hit by a plane, that collapsed "into its own footprint" ) I know, I know) hours later, while being owned by a rich old Gentile; and without that this is all meaningless.

My guess is that people are suspicious of Silverstein in part because of circumstances, in part because of his manner and person, and in part because of senseless, malign, Jew-hating insanity. And the fact that people are suspicious of him means that he is inevitably dragged further into the 911 maelstrom. Mud sticks, and suspicion breeds suspicion. Any meme that propagates is good propaganda. It makes absolutely no difference to the majority of the people spreading them, probably even starting them, whether he's a Jew. That just conveniently increases their traction.

Sure, some of them are Nazis. Some of them hate him because he's old, and rich, and reticent. Some of them probably don't even know why they hate him - they just plain do. But you're pushing accusations beyond the extent and the certainty of your data. What do they call that? Irrational prejudice - that's it.

LOL...for a second I thought you were metamars until I read your name, so I was all shocked like "Wait, why are you suddenly being calm and polite?"

You have a point, and as I've stated I do not believe ALL Truthers, or even all Truthers who focus on WTC7, are anti-Semities. But the blog I have linked to should solidify my case that, at least for a great many Truthers, Silverstein's ancestry plays a large role in their suspicion of him.

The other thing--I didn't realize it before, but it actually makes a pretty good case for malice against Silverstein--is the "pull it". "Pull it" has never been used to refer to controlled demolition prior to 9/11--that usage of the term was literally INVENTED by members of the Truth Movement. Somebody actually took the trouble to convince people that "pull it" meant "blow it up" even though he knew he had not one shred of evidence.

Somebody actually went to trouble to make something up to incriminate Silverstein--and specifically Silverstein. To me, that suggests either a personal grudge (unlikely, as I've never encountered a Truther who has even spoken to Silverstein at all, let alone knew him personally), or some form of prejudice/bigotry. As you've said, for some, this prejudiced may be based on his wealth rather than his ancestry, but for others...well, check out the blog I linked to.


For the "control case" you mention...what of Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6? They're all gone, as well.

 

[Confuseling]

...
Somebody actually went to trouble to make something up to incriminate Silverstein--and specifically Silverstein. To me, that suggests either a personal grudge (unlikely, as I've never encountered a Truther who has even spoken to Silverstein at all, let alone knew him personally), or some form of prejudice/bigotry. As you've said, for some, this prejudiced may be based on his wealth rather than his ancestry, but for others...well, check out the blog I linked to.

You could well still have this backwards. What if they became suspicious of building 7, then "pull it" dropped into their laps? Remember: if it causes cognitive dissonance, it's good evidence - that's their whole standard. I'm not convinced somebody consciously made it up.

For the "control case" you mention...what of Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6? They're all gone, as well.

Any of them skyscrapers, which collapsed "at free fall", "symmetrically", on video, multiple hours later (after having been reported to have collapsed already by TV), and bringing nothing but (understandable) prevarication from NIST?

What David James has been saying from the start of this thread still seems true. We are at severe risk of failing to apply our professed standards here. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[~enigma~]

You could well still have this backwards. What if they became suspicious of building 7, then "pull it" dropped into their laps?

Essentially this happened but where did they come up with the idea "pull it" was slang for "blow up in a CD"? I am not going to fault anyone for looking for a correlation but to fabricate something the way the first idiot who screamed "pull it"...well why did he (or she) make it up? And also, if the first utterance was due to some moronic anti-semite (which it apparently was - see the USS Liberty, Zionism, Mossad, dancing Israelis, Israeli art students, 4000 Israelis not showing up for work, etc...) and a bunch of truthers are now mindlessly parroting it,then they are promoting anti-semitism.

 

[Confuseling]

But you don't have to be a latent anti-semite to promote anti-semitism! It really is that simple. You can affiliate with a subculture with latent anti-semitism in, without in your own specific psyche having any anti-semitic feelings, however buried, whatsoever (whether you can continue on this course forever without being corrupted is another matter).

This is no different to the swivel eyed anarcho-right claims that welfare state medicine will inevitably lead to Stalinism. It just plain doesn't make sense.

"Pull it" obviously works as a meme, so obviously whoever thought it up was not alone in seeing the connection - unless you believe there's some subliminal messaging in Alex Jones' radio shows or something.

"Pull it"..."Pull it down"..."Pull it"..."Pull it down"...

Why not? Makes sense to me - given the proviso that you have to be jumping at shadows in the first place. It's no more insane than the "BBC were informed ahead of time" one. In fact arguably less so.

 

[~enigma~]

But you don't have to be a latent anti-semite to promote anti-semitism!

No...you may not actively be an anti-semite but you promote something anti-semitic which means that you are agreeing with an anti-semitic cause. With your logic, not all nazi's were anti-semitic. Unfortunately although some may not have been (willing to kill jews) by belonging and staying they were giving their approval to the nazi's actions and therefore were anti-semitic. Guess you and I (and obviously alot of people here) all have differing views on what anti-semitism is. Well unfortunately for the anti-semitic truthers alot of anti-semitism is based not on hate but on ignorance. They push what originally was anti-semitic even though they themselves claim not to be. What's next with your logic Confusling, are we gonna say that not all holocaust deniers are anti-semitic?

It's no more insane than the "BBC were informed ahead of time" one. In fact arguably less so.

Funny...you realize that the BBC reported it as the Salomon Brothers building early because the idiots claim there was a script but CNN called it WTC 7. Doesn't that put a major crimp in their "script" story?

 

[Confuseling]

Well, yes. Strictly speaking there is no inherent contradiction in being a Holocaust denier and not being anti-semitic - although it's about the most extreme example you could think of.

I could easily stake a place where I believe that the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion, even didn't happen at all, without hating Jews. I would be promoting people who hated Jews, however inadvertently, and would be acting in the service of anti-semitism. But that would not make me an anti-semite - even a latent one.

As to the Nazi thing, once you knew what was happening, to contribute in any minor way to the regime while claiming not to be an anti-semite doesn't really work. You are at the very best a willfully self-deluding latent anti-semite.

But this is hardly the same thing. You can be a Jewish, Zionist, swinging from the chandeliers pro-semite 911 truther, and indirectly promote anti-semitism, without contradiction. You could hardly say the same of the Nazis.

[eta - this last statement in fact contentious. Some early zionists did support the Nazis, as stated below. Odd world]

 

[~enigma~]

Well, yes. Strictly speaking there is no inherent contradiction in being a Holocaust denier and not being anti-semitic - although it's about the most extreme example you could think of.

I could easily stake a place where I believe that the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion, even didn't happen at all, without hating Jews. I would be promoting people who hated Jews, however inadvertently, and would be acting in the service of anti-semitism. But that would not make me an anti-semite - even a latent one.

Sure it would. Think of it this way. You can be guily of murder or manslaughter. Manslaughter is for all intents and purposes accidental or unintentional murder. In your example you would be guilty of unintentional anti-semitism but it is still anti-semitism. Now do you want to explain why you find it such a dire need to defend anti-semitism?

 

[Confuseling]

Sure it would. Think of it this way. You can be guily of murder or manslaughter. Manslaughter is for all intents and purposes accidental or unintentional murder. In your example you would be guilty of unintentional anti-semitism but it is still anti-semitism. Now do you want to explain why you find it such a dire need to defend anti-semitism?

I edited my post above - so please read the addition.

I have absolutely no intention of responding to that last bit of bait.

But yes, the difference between murder and manslaughter is perhaps instructive. Anti-semitism is by definition prejudice against semites - or more normally in the modern era, Jews specifically. If I drove a truck into a synagogue by mistake I would not be a subconscious anti-semite, would I?

ETA: The point is manslaughter isn't accidental murder, because that's an oxymoron. Murder is killing with intent. Manslaughter is killing without.

 

[~enigma~]

If I drove a truck into a synagogue by mistake I would not be a subconscious anti-semite, would I?

No that would mean you had an accident. However if you were not in traffic and there were no mechanical problems with your truck, you were wearing a nazi uniform with a swastika tatooed on your chest plus you sent a letter to the newspaper saying you were gonna kill jews then you drove a truck into a synagogue, yes you would be an anti-semite. Sorry, anybody in the truth movement that turns a blind eye is an anti-semite whether it is blatent or latent. Now I don't expect you to answer what you called "baiting" but it wasn't. i'm just asking why you find a need to change the definition of anti-semitism so you can defend the truth movement...

 

[Pardalis]

Damn, 6 pages for a simple "yes"?

 

[Confuseling]

Enigma - I've clearly stated in this thread my interest in this subject. I'm not changing definitions at all - I defy you to find a serious commentator who defines 'anti-semitism' as acting contrary to the interests of the Jewish people. It is prejudice, therefore it is by definition intent. Latent anti-semitism is subconscious intent - still intent.

Politics creates strange bedfellows. There were some early Zionists who supported the Nazis. There are ultra-orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism. There is absolutely no reason you cannot be a pro-semitic 911 truther, wince every time you hear someone talking about 'Zionist bankers controlling the world', and still believe in the "Pull it" quote or some such with every fibre of your being.

 

[~enigma~]

I defy you to find a serious commentator who defines 'anti-semitism' as acting contrary to the interests of the Jewish people. It is prejudice, therefore it is by definition intent. Latent anti-semitism is subconscious intent - still intent.

Ok...now I see your problem. That isn't what I said at all and I would appreciate you showing me where I said that. I agree that it is prejudice but that can eiter be blatent and "active" or latent and much more subtle. For example say someone grows up and they are taught by their parents that jew are cheap, they drink the blood of unbaptised babies, fire is really jew insurance, haggling down the price of somthing is called jewing them down, and all sorts of other idiotic beliefs. They grow up and since they never looked into the validity of what their mother taught them they believe and teach the same to other ignorant people who believe and spread it again. They aren't guilty of being as anti-semitic as the mother? Same thing with the truthers and their pull it, Mossad, dancing Israelis, Israeli art students, Jew World Order, etc....

 

[Confuseling]

Sorry enigma, you've still missed it.

Believing that fire is Jew insurance is prejudice. By definition. [unless we contrive an entirely artificial example where, for instance, you believe that Jews set light to their buildings in a benign religious ritual]

Believing that Mossad took part in 911 is not prejudice. It almost certainly is [mis]informed by prejudice, but that does not make it prejudice in itself. It could just be wrong. It could in fact have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism or Jewry.

As to where you've made this conflation; any of your last few posts.

ETA: rereading the above, I was definitely hasty in trying to define prejudice by intent. One could also define it by irrational generalisation, for example, with no intent of acting whatsoever. Maybe I meant intentionality. But you get what I was saying...]

 

[~enigma~]

Sorry enigma, you've still missed it.

Believing that fire is Jew insurance is prejudice. By definition. [unless we contrive an entirely artificial example where, for instance, you believe that Jews set light to their buildings in a benign religious ritual]

Believing that Mossad took part in 911 is not prejudice. It almost certainly is [mis]informed by prejudice, but that does not make it prejudice in itself. It could just be wrong. It could in fact have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism or Jewry.

As to where you've made this conflation; any of your last few posts.

So misinformed prejudice is not prejudice? Sorry Confuseling...you can't be any more wrong.

 

[Galileo]

I have created this thread to continue a tangent discussion which started in this thread, starting, I think, on page 5. I have respect for Max Photon so I do not wish to continue derailing his thread.


For those who were not following, we were discussing whether the accusations made against Larry Silverstein--of lying, of complicity, of a cover-up, of fraud, etc--are, deep down, motivated by anti-Semitism on the part of the accuser.

Pomeroo and I believe this is the case, based on the utter lack of evidence for any sort of malice on Silverstein's part, the Truth Movement's obsession with the WTC7 case despite minimal differences between it and the cases of other auxiliary WTC buildings, the Truth Movement's cherrypicking and persistent harping on Silverstein's "pull it" quote even after it was proven that the term is NOT demolition slang, and the great deal of known anti-Semitism within the Truth Movement.

This thread is idiotic.

First of all, Larry Silverstein is a white American, not an Arab semite. He even has a white American sounding name. Larry is a common Christian name in the United States.

Second, Silverstein made the statements he is acussed of making on TV, so Silverstein should be blamed for the comments, not the 9/11 Truth movement.

The people who are blaming the Arabs are the anti-semites.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The people who are blaming the Arabs are the anti-semites.

Excuse us for blaming people (Islamic Fundies) for an attack whom have actually admitted to carrying it out, have carried out other attacks and vocally cry out for more.

 

[~enigma~]

Excuse us for blaming people (Islamic Fundies) for an attack whom have actually admitted to carrying it out, have carried out other attacks and vocally cry out for more.

he/she/it is trolling for a response. Do you have to play his game?

ETA - Forgot I didn't mean the jammin dude...

 

[Confuseling]

So misinformed prejudice is not prejudice? Sorry Confuseling...you can't be any more wrong.

Misinformed by prejudice.

Many people in this country believed that the Guildford Four were guilty of terrorism in the name of the IRA. They were wrong, but in most cases not prejudiced.

If they believed they were guilty because they were Irish, it would have been prejudice.

Sorry Enigma, I really can't think of any way to make this clearer. You can believe in something erroneously for reasons that are not about maligning a [racial] group. You can be just plain wrong, and whether the originator of the belief was prejudiced, or whether the belief serves prejudice, makes absolutely no difference to the individuals belief - prejudice is about the internal content of your head, and is not changed one jot by external circumstance.

ETA: On that note I'm bowing out for now... have fun peeps

 

[~enigma~]

Misinformed by prejudice.

Many people in this country believed that the Guildford Four were guilty of terrorism in the name of the IRA. They were wrong, but in most cases not prejudiced.

If they believed they were guilty because they were Irish, it would have been prejudice.

Sorry Enigma, I really can't think of any way to make this clearer. You can believe in something erroneously for reasons that are not about maligning a [racial] group. You can be just plain wrong, and whether the originator of the belief was prejudiced, or whether the belief serves prejudice, makes absolutely no difference to the individuals belief - prejudice is about the internal content of your head, and is not changed one jot by external circumstance.

You didn't answer the question. Here it is again...

So misinformed prejudice is not prejudice?

ETA - Does that mean in your eyes we are not responsible for our beliefs?