The following essay was referenced in another thread:
Here's the problem. Much of my knowledge of 9/11, like my knowledge of almost everything in the world, is indirect. For instance, I believe based on the available evidence that Osama bin Laden is an Islamic jihadist reactionary who has used terrorism to advance his agenda, and not a CIA agent or a fictional character invented by the CIA. But, I could not absolutely disprove those latter notions on my own account. I haven't met him, I didn't eyewitness any of his historically notable actions, and I haven't personally combed the entire world looking for him. Even if I had, how could I know for sure? There is at least some room for doubt.
But, I can read history books and news accounts and see for myself what those accounts say about bin Laden. I can see for myself that "the official story" does not claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from a cave in Afghanistan. I have no first-hand information about how the 9/11 attacks were planned, but I do have first-hand information about what is and is not printed in books. So I know, for absolutely certain, that "orchestrated from a cave in Afghanistan" is a fabrication, and a fabrication presented not by "officials" or "mainstream journalists" or "academics" but by Rancourt himself.
As Rancourt himself aptly put it: "What the hell?"
What is a Masochistic Lie?
The phenomenon described above comes up often enough, especially in the claims and writings of 9/11 conspiracism, that I want to give it a name and try to understand it more deeply. I hereby define:
Masochistic Lie (n.) A lie that has absolutely no possibility of being believed, due to contradicting the immediate and direct experience of the person to whom it's addressed.
A Masochistic Lie is not merely a transparent lie. A transparent lie might be illustrated by, say, Billy in a Family Circus cartoon saying "I didn't eat that cake" with chocolate cake smeared all around his mouth. In that case there is clear evidence that weighs strongly against the lie, but there is no absolute certainty. Perhaps a wild animal entered the house, ate the cake, and subsequently escaped leaving no other trace, while Billy innocently smeared his mouth by eating a chocolate bar.
A Masochistic Lie would be more like Billy saying "I'm not holding a piece of cake" while holding a piece of cake.
Or, consider the cliche of a woman catching her lover kissing another woman, and he says: "It's not what it looks like." That's most likely a lie (in the real world), but not a masochistic lie. There is some doubt. In fact, a staple of romantic comedy is the contriving of circumstances in which it really isn't what it looks like, and the apparently cheating partner is actually innocent. To make it a masochistic lie he would have to say: "It doesn't look like what it looks like." That's a guaranteed lie with no possible doubt. Regardless of what it actually is, it certainly does look like what it looks like.
The Purpose of the Masochistic Lie
The nature of the Masochistic Lie becomes clearer when we look closer at whom a lie is actually directed at.
Consider the case of a false accusation against an individual. Except in rare circumstances involving diminished mental capacity or memory loss, every false accusation is a Masochistic Lie from the perspective of the person accused.
And yet, deliberate false accusations are common enough. There must be some point to them, some advantage for the liar to gain. And of course, there is. The lie of a false accusation is not actually directed at the accused. A false accusation will not convince anyone that they are guilty, if they are in fact innocent. (Again, barring diminished mental capacity, or deliberate additional measures to induce same, as in brainwashing.) But it may very well convince others whose judgment of guilt or innocence carries weight. That is the liar's goal. When you hear a Masochistic Lie, it is a near certainty that you are not the person actually being lied to. You might be the intended target or victim of the lie, but the lie is designed to convince someone else besides you.
In the case of Rancourt's essay, the format, style, vocabulary, and presentation creates the impression of addressing fellow members of "the intelligentsia" about their own shortcomings. But to actual academics, historians, and journalists, the whole thing is one Masochistic Lie after another. We can expect, for example, that no person in that target group who has engaged significantly with the topic of 9/11 history will be fooled by the false assertion that the consensual narrative claims "orchestrated from a cave."
From this we can tell that the actual agenda is not reform from within, but to demonize "the intelligentsia" outside that supposed group. Despite the author's efforts to establish his own academic and scientific credentials, he is appealing to, and lying to, an anti-academic, anti-scientific, anti-intellectual audience.
Respectfully,
Myriad
(emphasis added)Rancourt's essay said:
Here's the problem. Much of my knowledge of 9/11, like my knowledge of almost everything in the world, is indirect. For instance, I believe based on the available evidence that Osama bin Laden is an Islamic jihadist reactionary who has used terrorism to advance his agenda, and not a CIA agent or a fictional character invented by the CIA. But, I could not absolutely disprove those latter notions on my own account. I haven't met him, I didn't eyewitness any of his historically notable actions, and I haven't personally combed the entire world looking for him. Even if I had, how could I know for sure? There is at least some room for doubt.
But, I can read history books and news accounts and see for myself what those accounts say about bin Laden. I can see for myself that "the official story" does not claim that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated from a cave in Afghanistan. I have no first-hand information about how the 9/11 attacks were planned, but I do have first-hand information about what is and is not printed in books. So I know, for absolutely certain, that "orchestrated from a cave in Afghanistan" is a fabrication, and a fabrication presented not by "officials" or "mainstream journalists" or "academics" but by Rancourt himself.
As Rancourt himself aptly put it: "What the hell?"
What is a Masochistic Lie?
The phenomenon described above comes up often enough, especially in the claims and writings of 9/11 conspiracism, that I want to give it a name and try to understand it more deeply. I hereby define:
Masochistic Lie (n.) A lie that has absolutely no possibility of being believed, due to contradicting the immediate and direct experience of the person to whom it's addressed.
A Masochistic Lie is not merely a transparent lie. A transparent lie might be illustrated by, say, Billy in a Family Circus cartoon saying "I didn't eat that cake" with chocolate cake smeared all around his mouth. In that case there is clear evidence that weighs strongly against the lie, but there is no absolute certainty. Perhaps a wild animal entered the house, ate the cake, and subsequently escaped leaving no other trace, while Billy innocently smeared his mouth by eating a chocolate bar.
A Masochistic Lie would be more like Billy saying "I'm not holding a piece of cake" while holding a piece of cake.
Or, consider the cliche of a woman catching her lover kissing another woman, and he says: "It's not what it looks like." That's most likely a lie (in the real world), but not a masochistic lie. There is some doubt. In fact, a staple of romantic comedy is the contriving of circumstances in which it really isn't what it looks like, and the apparently cheating partner is actually innocent. To make it a masochistic lie he would have to say: "It doesn't look like what it looks like." That's a guaranteed lie with no possible doubt. Regardless of what it actually is, it certainly does look like what it looks like.
The Purpose of the Masochistic Lie
The nature of the Masochistic Lie becomes clearer when we look closer at whom a lie is actually directed at.
Consider the case of a false accusation against an individual. Except in rare circumstances involving diminished mental capacity or memory loss, every false accusation is a Masochistic Lie from the perspective of the person accused.
And yet, deliberate false accusations are common enough. There must be some point to them, some advantage for the liar to gain. And of course, there is. The lie of a false accusation is not actually directed at the accused. A false accusation will not convince anyone that they are guilty, if they are in fact innocent. (Again, barring diminished mental capacity, or deliberate additional measures to induce same, as in brainwashing.) But it may very well convince others whose judgment of guilt or innocence carries weight. That is the liar's goal. When you hear a Masochistic Lie, it is a near certainty that you are not the person actually being lied to. You might be the intended target or victim of the lie, but the lie is designed to convince someone else besides you.
In the case of Rancourt's essay, the format, style, vocabulary, and presentation creates the impression of addressing fellow members of "the intelligentsia" about their own shortcomings. But to actual academics, historians, and journalists, the whole thing is one Masochistic Lie after another. We can expect, for example, that no person in that target group who has engaged significantly with the topic of 9/11 history will be fooled by the false assertion that the consensual narrative claims "orchestrated from a cave."
From this we can tell that the actual agenda is not reform from within, but to demonize "the intelligentsia" outside that supposed group. Despite the author's efforts to establish his own academic and scientific credentials, he is appealing to, and lying to, an anti-academic, anti-scientific, anti-intellectual audience.
Respectfully,
Myriad
I still think Myriad's OP is interesting, but I haven't quite got the hang of it.