9/11 Truth & an Anti-War Movement

[Fly Poster]

Oh yes, ergo and I are definitely arguing the same point. We are always on the same side of this 9/11 stuff.

I don't know what else to say. Can someone help me with this?



Here I think you touch on a point of this forum that has bothered me for a long time. I have a personal answer to this problem, but the composition of the Truther community remains a general problem in discussions on the JREF.

Truthers who populate different forums have different positions in the Truther community. The Truthers who post on JREF, for example, would generally be peons in their world. While we have been blessed with the presence of giants like what's-his-name from P4T, the majority of Truthers here are posting in their spare time from anonymous usernames. Occasionally we get those trying to make a name for themselves, like that Derek Johnson fellow. As I have said many times, the Truthers I know on Facebook have never been here. If you go to the broadcasts done through some of the on-line stations, none of those people post here or anywhere else. Many of them are extremely right-wing Christians.

I know you know all this, but the diversity of confusions that lead to 9/11 Truth is sometimes forgotten. More significantly, it leads to its own confusion about why Truthers are Truthers.

There may be Truthers for whom Truthing is appealing because it creates a kind of current affairs that they can understand and feel 'smart' about. I don't think that's what's going on with DRG and the theology crowd that you refer to. DRG may be an idiot, but he is a very sophisticated thinker. His sophistication just doesn't lead to a coherent argument. Watch some of his videos about process theology. They seem quite insightful - if you have any interest in this kind of problem.

This connection with religion is intriguing to me because it links together the left-wing and the right-wing of the Truth Movement. It also provides a common ground for well-educated and poorly educated Truthers. I'm trying to get a better understanding of what it is that would make someone like DRG or Gage share the same platform as a right-wing skinhead political organizer. I feel this idea about it based in a confusion about moral arguments and factual analysis is promising.

Interesting post, I have never met a right-wing truther, my experience of truthers has only been through me meeting them at various anti-war, and lefty protests and actions.

I Hi-lighted a bit of your post because a while back I read a piece that was doing the rounds amongst activists*, that put across the idea that many activists have become specialists in their roles as activists and moral crusaders, and that this identifying with the role prevents the social change they want to see. If more people become activists, it's not so specialist any more, or if you win the campaign, you lose your identity.
Truthers do similar, without the activism, they are specialists in their esoteric knowledge, however they have no plan of action, or end goal - their roles are set.

ETA: * http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm

 

[MarkLindeman]

What I think I am trying to get at is that there for many there is a moral argument that has primacy. ergo describes it as something about the War on Terror, but that too must be wrong. That is an empirical statement about the role of the 9/11 attacks in promoting military action in the Middle East. This too appears to be wrong and based on an infantile understanding of how diplomacy works. What I want is a more abstract goal that conspiracy theorists are trying to achieve. In this paper, Hugo Hernái tries to argue that its an explanation for suffering that can compete with theological understandings. I don't think he's right, but I like the direction he's moving in.

I'm not sure what you mean by "primacy"; are you? I really doubt that conspiracy theorists consciously adopt their CTs in pursuit of an abstract goal. Probably their CTs can be construed as functional. I am inclined to suspect that some people have a predisposition to conspiracism, but not necessarily an imperative to conspiracism -- so it's "primary" in the sense of being causally prior, but not necessarily dominant. However, I think you focus on more "hard-core" Truth activists than I do, so maybe that distinction isn't so relevant for you.

I'm also not sure what you mean by a "moral argument." Hernáiz seems to argue that conspiracy theories are a way of accounting for (explaining) "global evils." To tweak that a bit, one might say that some people have a rule of thumb: if something bad happens, chances are that powerful people are covering up something important about it. That's morally charged, but I wouldn't say it's a moral argument. I don't know if we actually disagree about this, or what aspect of Hernáiz's direction you like.

I am not familar with Lippmann, but I think this is excellent. It points to a growing problem in the public perception of facts and moral judgements that he suggests is now widespread.

Pardon a quibble: I think I forgot to mention that Lippmann wrote that in 1922. There may indeed be a growing problem -- I'm not sure how to measure it over time -- but I don't think the underlying dynamics are new.

In other threads, Ryan Mackey has talked about "confusion" leading to the inability to reach logical conclusions from the facts. He gives an example of his father's fixation with something that leads to his misuse of a computer. There would be public opinion analogs of this. Your quote from Lippmann seems to be about this.

Just to say: I think Lippmann is, in that passage, especially interested in problems where it would be hard for even the most rigorous observers to agree upon what conclusions are logical. But failure to converge on the answers to relatively straightforward empirical questions is perhaps a more surprising or irritating phenomenon.

Beliefs about conspiracy are much more widespread than just 9/11 Truth. Beliefs about the President's citizenship, about UFOs, or even in the expat community in which I live there are conspiracy beliefs about the society around us. In this context, I think what I want to do here is develop a deeper understanding of the psychological and social mechanisms of what Lippmann is getting at.

Makes sense.

I don't think so either. But I do think that for many, there is a deeper underlying moral statement that insistence on the CD conspiracy has come to represent. Imagine that we are all back in the Antebellum South. Would it matter to you that one of the arguments for slavery was the economic prosperity it brought? I do know people for whom that remains a compelling argument. But I know that slavery is wrong no matter what it brings us. I would suffer the collapse of my way of life if its continuation entailed human slavery. But the moral correctness of slavery is not a factual argument and as such, no factual argument could be constructed about it.

Maybe not. But there was quite a spirited factual, or quasi-factual, debate about whether slavery was good for the slaves. ("Good" is value-laden language, obviously, but I think it would be a mistake to say that the debate had nothing to do with facts.) I think most people are sufficiently consequentialist to think that that debate was germane to the moral question.

And this is where ergo and his Truther buddies fall down. There is a factual argument that can be constructed about the relationship between the War on Terror and the 9/11 attacks. It has been constructed and there is no clear path. But that's not even relevant. That a logical connection exists means that it is not a moral argument. There is an argument that can be constructed about these connections, but the form needed for moral arguments can not produce a valid conclusion. The use of moral arguments to validate empirical arguments results in gibberish. As Lippmann alludes to, it goes on all the time, but it is gibberish.

My uncertainty about what you mean by "moral arguments" is a problem here. For instance, (most?) creationists disbelieve in evolution because they accept as a first principle that God individually created species. I wouldn't call that a moral argument; it's just an empirically unsupported premise.

The "first principles" that lead to faulty inferences can vary widely in importance. A general orientation toward conspiracism cannot (can it?) explain why some people are convinced that no plane hit the Pentagon, while other people are convinced that no-planerism is itself a false flag conspiracy.

To return to my initial point...there are individuals who can not distinguish between these two types of knowledge. I am quite interested in Fly Poster's statements about the relationship between this confusion and confusion with other facts about the natural world.

Fatigue sets in...my wife wants the computer...how's all that?

Pretty interesting. I think we need ways of reasoning and talking about inference beyond "empirical" vs. "moral" -- and I apologize if putting it that way seems like a caricature.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Interesting post, I have never met a right-wing truther, my experience of truthers has only been through me meeting them at various anti-war, and lefty protests and actions.

This is the point of me mentioning this. Right-wing Truthers are numerically dominant right now, but you'd never know that from this forum. The JREF deals with a certain kind of Truther - one that uses websites and forums to communicate. If you check out Facebook Truthers or Nformed Radio

or Harry Link and his crew
http://unitedtruthseekers.com/profi...o-com-2012-nwo-engineered-civil-unrest-in-ame
These guys are all right-wing Ron Paul-type Bible thumpers. The John Birch Society is the same thing. Any Truthers there - and there are a lot - are right-wing Christians.

I'm going to suggest you have a look at my article in Skeptic. There's a link to a pirate copy that someone put up on the Net here
http://readperiodicals.com/201101/2274226211.html
Another good place to look would be Ryan Mackey's last paper here,
http://www.911myths.com/tgitc_1_0_final.pdf

OK...Mark...I referenced the Hernái paper not because I agree with it but because he is positing that distinctions between different kinds of knowledge and not some sort of cognitive dysfunction are at the root of conspiracy theory beliefs.

I'm not a moral philosopher and I'm sure there's a better definition, but what I mean by a moral argument is one whose solution demands an understanding of the difference between right and wrong. That's about as close to it as I can get.

I think we need ways of reasoning and talking about inference beyond "empirical" vs. "moral" -- and I apologize if putting it that way seems like a caricature.

To start at the end, this may be where our problem lies. I am not a philosopher and have only a poorly developed vocabulary with regard to this problem. I have a lot of answers to your earlier questions, but after some thought, I agree that much of what you wrote has to do with the fuzziness with which I use these key terms.

One thing I would like to comment on is the need or existence of a moral judgement to start the conspiracy beliefs rolling.

My uncertainty about what you mean by "moral arguments" is a problem here. For instance, (most?) creationists disbelieve in evolution because they accept as a first principle that God individually created species. I wouldn't call that a moral argument; it's just an empirically unsupported premise.

Except that Creation Scientists start with an earlier premise that everything God does is right. What's needed then is a method to determine with certainty what God has done. Hence you get a "science" of life based individually created species and not a scientific method that can only deduce "theories".

The same kind of thinking is found among Truthers. And I think even among the less committed Truthers that you're in touch with. How many times have you heard the argument that since Bush would have blown up the WTC if he could have, that you have to consider the possibility that he did? And that even the existence of significant evidence that he didn't do it doesn't mean that he didn't- because he would have if he could? On the JREF we brush these aside as the ramblings of muddled thinkings, but what if belief in this really is why our Truther friend is saying what he or she is saying?

The "first principles" that lead to faulty inferences can vary widely in importance. A general orientation toward conspiracism cannot (can it?) explain why some people are convinced that no plane hit the Pentagon, while other people are convinced that no-planerism is itself a false flag conspiracy.

No, but that's a far more complicated problem. As I have made the argument elsewhere, some Truthers are mentally ill. Some of them have drug and drinking problems. Some of them have low IQ scores. Some have been lied to about the scientifically-accepted evidence.

But there are people aware of all these things and not ill and probably intelligent enough to know better. Harry Link would be one of them. DRG would be another. Harry Link is a right-wing Christian who believes Obama is the Anti-Christ and a secret global government called the New World Order really controls the world. DRG voted for Al Gore in 1992 and believes that only a one world government can save us from modernity. What is it about conspiracy theory that appeals to such diverse people? That for me is the question I want to answer with these recent threads.

 

[Brainster]

This is the point of me mentioning this. Right-wing Truthers are numerically dominant right now, but you'd never know that from this forum. The JREF deals with a certain kind of Truther - one that uses websites and forums to communicate. If you check out Facebook Truthers or Nformed Radio

or Harry Link and his crew
http://unitedtruthseekers.com/profi...o-com-2012-nwo-engineered-civil-unrest-in-ame
These guys are all right-wing Ron Paul-type Bible thumpers. The John Birch Society is the same thing. Any Truthers there - and there are a lot - are right-wing Christians.

I'm going to suggest you have a look at my article in Skeptic. There's a link to a pirate copy that someone put up on the Net here
http://readperiodicals.com/201101/2274226211.html
Another good place to look would be Ryan Mackey's last paper here,
http://www.911myths.com/tgitc_1_0_final.pdf

I suspect that there may be a flaw in your methodology. Trying to look at the movement from the ground up via Facebook leads to the question of how you started. If you started from the WAC pages or from those who attended the WAC event at GZ in 2009, I can see how you might follow links that indicate a strong rightward tilt to the movement. The question is whether there are methods that might lead in a different direction. For example, you might check the regular Truther posters at Democratic Underground, and follow their Facebook friends. Or check out the Facebook pages of the major figures in the movement like Griffin, Gage and Jones and see who has befriended them.

It's probably fair to say that the proportion of right-wingers active in the movement has grown since Obama was elected due to some dissipation of the lefty Truthers, but I still doubt that they are anywhere near a majority. Again, one of the reasons that Truthers are able to attract adherents is that they offer shortcuts to goals that people find appealing. Compiling a list of those goals that would apply to left-wingers is pretty easy:

1. Provides a rationale for ending wars based on the attacks.
2. Provides a rationale for impeaching Bush (back during his term of office) and for the arrest and conviction of Bush and other administration officials today.
3. Provides a rationale for ending perceived irrational prejudice against Islam and Muslims.
4. Provides a rationale for ending support for Israel. (That brand of Trutherism that posits the Mossad was in charge of the operation.)
5. Provides a rationale for ending the Patriot Act.

Now try to come up with a comparable list of goals for right-wing Christians that 9-11 Trutherism solves. There's really not much there:

1. Provides a rationale for ending the invasive searches by the TSA.
2. Provides a rationale for ending support for Israel. (Mossad operation). But many right-wing Christians support Israel for biblical and other reasons, so the only right-wingers who would find this appealing are the Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo types.
3. Provides a rationale for ending the Patriot Act.

There are two areas of overlap, but I strongly suspect that support for achieving those goals remains stronger among left-wingers than it does among right-wingers. That is, left-wingers are more likely to be anti-Israel and anti-Patriot Act than righties.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, Gage's newsletter for February is pushing Truthers to "Bring Truth to the Connecticut Anti-War Conference":

Join other AE911Truth activists at the United National Antiwar Coalition Conference in Stamford, CT on March 23-25, 2012. Help us influence the “working sessions” with statements of support and your votes to include the 9/11 Truth issue in the coalition’s platform. With your support at this event, we can help the peace movement gain the leverage it needs to expose the fraudulent roots of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Help us win this crucial consensus with your presence. Everyone has a vote.

 

[MarkLindeman]

Thanks for pointing out the Mackey piece from last November -- I hadn't seen it.

OK...Mark...I referenced the Hernái paper not because I agree with it but because he is positing that distinctions between different kinds of knowledge and not some sort of cognitive dysfunction are at the root of conspiracy theory beliefs.

OK, I can work with that. We just need a way of describing some of those kinds.

I'm not a moral philosopher and I'm sure there's a better definition, but what I mean by a moral argument is one whose solution demands an understanding of the difference between right and wrong. That's about as close to it as I can get....

One thing I would like to comment on is the need or existence of a moral judgement to start the conspiracy beliefs rolling.

I think many conspiracy beliefs either start with or persist because of attributions of villainy and/or heroism. Is that consistent with what you mean by "a moral judgement"?

Except that Creation Scientists start with an earlier premise that everything God does is right. What's needed then is a method to determine with certainty what God has done. Hence you get a "science" of life based individually created species and not a scientific method that can only deduce "theories".

I would have said that Creation Scientists need arguments to bolster their conviction that the official story is wrong, and don't really need to determine anything. (Sound familiar?)

The same kind of thinking is found among Truthers. And I think even among the less committed Truthers that you're in touch with. How many times have you heard the argument that since Bush would have blown up the WTC if he could have, that you have to consider the possibility that he did? And that even the existence of significant evidence that he didn't do it doesn't mean that he didn't- because he would have if he could? On the JREF we brush these aside as the ramblings of muddled thinkings, but what if belief in this really is why our Truther friend is saying what he or she is saying?

I more often seem to encounter the argument that if I'm not convinced by the physical evidence, it must be because I am incapable of accepting the possibility that Bush did such a bad thing. But I suppose that is related. There is a value-laden grand narrative, and each of us chooses our part in it, be it truth-seeker or Bush apologist.

I'm not sure exactly how or whether the following pertains, but the first time I read it, my head exploded. The writer seems to be saying that it is impossible to get the "number crunching" right unless one first accepts the obvious conclusion: "They DID steal the 2004 election." Accept that, and maybe one can correctly conduct the analysis. This may fit very well with your point.

...Harry Link is a right-wing Christian who believes Obama is the Anti-Christ and a secret global government called the New World Order really controls the world. DRG voted for Al Gore in 1992 and believes that only a one world government can save us from modernity. What is it about conspiracy theory that appeals to such diverse people? That for me is the question I want to answer with these recent threads.

It's a pretty interesting question. I'm inclined to agree with Mackey in the paper you just cited that any of us can fall for conspiracy theories, but surely some people are more likely to fall -- and/or likely to fall harder -- than others, for whatever reason or reasons. Belief in the supernatural may have some influence or serve as a proxy for some influence. Surely there is something there about attitudes toward governing authorities! Dunno what else.

 

[LSSBB]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, Gage's newsletter for February is pushing Truthers to "Bring Truth to the Connecticut Anti-War Conference":

The conference website bills this as The National Peace Conference.
I don't see Gage or any other Truther subjects on the agenda.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I suspect that there may be a flaw in your methodology. Trying to look at the movement from the ground up via Facebook leads to the question of how you started. If you started from the WAC pages or from those who attended the WAC event at GZ in 2009, I can see how you might follow links that indicate a strong rightward tilt to the movement. The question is whether there are methods that might lead in a different direction. For example, you might check the regular Truther posters at Democratic Underground, and follow their Facebook friends. Or check out the Facebook pages of the major figures in the movement like Griffin, Gage and Jones and see who has befriended them.

It's probably fair to say that the proportion of right-wingers active in the movement has grown since Obama was elected due to some dissipation of the lefty Truthers, but I still doubt that they are anywhere near a majority. Again, one of the reasons that Truthers are able to attract adherents is that they offer shortcuts to goals that people find appealing. Compiling a list of those goals that would apply to left-wingers is pretty easy:

1. Provides a rationale for ending wars based on the attacks.
2. Provides a rationale for impeaching Bush (back during his term of office) and for the arrest and conviction of Bush and other administration officials today.
3. Provides a rationale for ending perceived irrational prejudice against Islam and Muslims.
4. Provides a rationale for ending support for Israel. (That brand of Trutherism that posits the Mossad was in charge of the operation.)
5. Provides a rationale for ending the Patriot Act.

Now try to come up with a comparable list of goals for right-wing Christians that 9-11 Trutherism solves. There's really not much there:

1. Provides a rationale for ending the invasive searches by the TSA.
2. Provides a rationale for ending support for Israel. (Mossad operation). But many right-wing Christians support Israel for biblical and other reasons, so the only right-wingers who would find this appealing are the Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo types.
3. Provides a rationale for ending the Patriot Act.

There are two areas of overlap, but I strongly suspect that support for achieving those goals remains stronger among left-wingers than it does among right-wingers. That is, left-wingers are more likely to be anti-Israel and anti-Patriot Act than righties.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, Gage's newsletter for February is pushing Truthers to "Bring Truth to the Connecticut Anti-War Conference":

I don't know if you remember but we've talked about this before.

Over on another thread, you had this to say about the question,

As I've said before, it's a generational thing. Truthers over 40 skew left while those under 30 skew right. Because the media tend to associate age with responsibility, the more visible face of Trooferism is Leftist: Webster Tarpley, David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer, etc. On the Right, only Alex Jones has the credibility with the media (as compared to real credibility) to get much visibility.

But more important, both sides skew wacko. You won't find a lot of support for Alex Jones among mainstream conservatives; his brand of libertarianism/survivalism is a fringe element. Ditto with Mike Malloy and his loopy brand of leftism.

It's a pretty interesting question. I'm inclined to agree with Mackey in the paper you just cited that any of us can fall for conspiracy theories, but surely some people are more likely to fall -- and/or likely to fall harder -- than others, for whatever reason or reasons. Belief in the supernatural may have some influence or serve as a proxy for some influence. Surely there is something there about attitudes toward governing authorities! Dunno what else.

I don't think there's really much in Ryan's paper that addresses our discussion. He's talking about psychological aspects of processing that can lead to conspiracy thinking. Our discussion deals with this on a different level. Here I believe we are asking why those psychological mechanisms would develop more in some people than in others. Or why some of us have the ability to deal with them (more or less) when they occur.

 

[Brass]

In some ways, I think 9-11 Truth is a way of short-circuiting the rational and moral arguments against war (particularly the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). There were somewhat reasonable arguments against the war in Afghanistan; I am not saying that I found them compelling personally, but I could respect the people who made them.

But 9-11 Truth circumvented the whole "we should turn the other cheek" and "pigeons coming home to roost" arguments. I don't know if Scott is old enough to remember the Vietnam War arguments but there were similar short-circuits claimed back then: that JFK was assassinated because he wouldn't go along with the military; that LBJ pursued the war because his wife had financial interests in South Vietnamese rubber plantations, etc.

These kinds of arguments are appealing precisely because they don't require a lot of sophistication. If LBJ wasn't really interested in stopping the spread of communism but in lining his pockets, then you don't have to deal with whether communism is good or bad, or whether we need to stop it. If 9-11 was an inside job, then you don't have to argue whether we need to get rid of the Taliban, or (in the case of Iraq), whether a Western-style democracy might serve as a model for the rest of the region.

As LSSB said, there is an intriguing nexus between religion, peace groups and 9-11 Truth, that I have struggled to understand. Certainly there are a disproportionate number of Truthers who are theology professors, including Griffin and McQueen, among others.

Also, the people who facilitate the information against 9/11 facts might not even agree with what they're telling the public. Alex Jones is a perfect example. His show is dedicated to conspiracy theories. If he doesn't make up facts about an event and claim it as a conspiracy, then he has no show; so naturally, in order to have a job, he's going to claim everything is a conspiracy.

 

[Scott Sommers]

But to answer your question directly,

I suspect that there may be a flaw in your methodology. Trying to look at the movement from the ground up via Facebook leads to the question of how you started. If you started from the WAC pages or from those who attended the WAC event at GZ in 2009, I can see how you might follow links that indicate a strong rightward tilt to the movement. The question is whether there are methods that might lead in a different direction. For example, you might check the regular Truther posters at Democratic Underground, and follow their Facebook friends. Or check out the Facebook pages of the major figures in the movement like Griffin, Gage and Jones and see who has befriended them.

In fact, I initially tried everything. Back when Luke Rudkowski was running things, all roads lead to We Are Change. I talked about that in the paper I wrote for Skeptic. No one could get anything done without having to deal with Luke. Even Gage was speaking at their events.

What I am saying is that your initial thoughts on an age differential are more in-line with my experiences. Sure, there are a bunch of old hippies out there shooting their mouths off about 9/11 crap. But they are increasingly having to align themselves with right-wing nut bars to get anything done. As much as they don't do this, they just end up being crazy old hippies that everyone laughs at at.

It's probably fair to say that the proportion of right-wingers active in the movement has grown since Obama was elected due to some dissipation of the lefty Truthers, but I still doubt that they are anywhere near a majority. Again, one of the reasons that Truthers are able to attract adherents is that they offer shortcuts to goals that people find appealing. Compiling a list of those goals that would apply to left-wingers is pretty easy:

1. Provides a rationale for ending wars based on the attacks.
2. Provides a rationale for impeaching Bush (back during his term of office) and for the arrest and conviction of Bush and other administration officials today.
3. Provides a rationale for ending perceived irrational prejudice against Islam and Muslims.
4. Provides a rationale for ending support for Israel. (That brand of Trutherism that posits the Mossad was in charge of the operation.)
5. Provides a rationale for ending the Patriot Act.

Now try to come up with a comparable list of goals for right-wing Christians that 9-11 Trutherism solves. There's really not much there:

1. Provides a rationale for ending the invasive searches by the TSA.
2. Provides a rationale for ending support for Israel. (Mossad operation). But many right-wing Christians support Israel for biblical and other reasons, so the only right-wingers who would find this appealing are the Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo types.
3. Provides a rationale for ending the Patriot Act.

I'm not sure it works like this. I'm not really sure what to say to this, but the idea of making lists of pros & cons then counting which side has a bigger number seems intuitively flawed as a method of charting the influence of a social movement.

Right-wing Truthers are now linked up with the American Patriot Movement and the Ron Paul Revolution. They have a legitimate political goal that attracts people whose identity is more firmly rooted in their conspiracy beliefs than in their politics. It is extremely common now to find Facebook pages of aged hippie-looking folks who otherwise seem very 'left-wing' with links to Ron Paul FB fan sites and other right-wing Christian FB groups. Examples of this abound among AE9/11T organizers.

As such, you see all kinds of whacko people who appear to think of themselves as leftists hanging around with and supporting the most right-wing of political movements. I wrote all about this in the post I refereed to above. In particular, I suggest this post about a WAC supporter, Brooke Kelly
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6718645#post6718645
I don't pay much attention to this anymore, but apparently Brooke has become more interested in Eastern spirituality these days.

A much better example of this left-right confusion comes from Canada. In Canada, we have your friends and mine Tony Hall and Josh Blakeney. On his FB, Josh calls himself a classical Marxist. Tony thinks he's a revolutionary calling for Indians to overthrow their colonial tyranny and making fun of the Tea Party. Yet Josh and Tony publish in Veteran's Today and hang out with Neo-Nazi Holocaust Deniers. Josh has other FB friends who are skinhead racists from WAC. A Truther friend of Josh runs a college radio show in which he cites right-wing American personalities such as Ron Paul, Sherri Tenpenny, Oath Keepers, Judge Napolitano, Jesse Ventura, Pastor Joe Fox from Viking Preparedness, and promoter of Freeman on the Land ideology Andrew Paterson...to name a few. At the same time, he broadcasts about how chemtrails are part of the attack on state-sponsored medical care in Canada. I'm sure he thinks he's a left-wing Truther. I think he's a conduit for the importation of the most right-wing American thought into Canada.

I have many examples of this.

 

[dannyb]

My immediate feeling is that Truthers and many AWM people are drawn from the same pool.

I strongly disagree with this feeling. I am an anti-war activist and member of Stop The War Coalition. I am also anti-Truther because their ideas are irrational, illogical and a distraction from serious issues.

There are many reasonable arguments against war, there is no reasonable argument for the US government carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Noam Chomsky is a high profile dissident writer who has no time for Trutherism, also.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I strongly disagree with this feeling. I am an anti-war activist and member of Stop The War Coalition. I am also anti-Truther because their ideas are irrational, illogical and a distraction from serious issues.

There are many reasonable arguments against war, there is no reasonable argument for the US government carrying out the 9/11 attacks. Noam Chomsky is a high profile dissident writer who has no time for Trutherism, also.

I think you're misunderstanding what we're talking about here. It's exactly this difference that we're trying to understand. Why would it be possible for some to interpret an anti-war position in logical and rational terms that can be communicated fluently to someone who supports the war? Yet others who oppose war find this unconvincing and need to cloak it in mystical terms that imply conspiracy?

The presence of conspiracy theory in progressive political movements is a reality. Right-of-center political groups have generally handled the presence of conspiracy theory by banishing its advocates. Hence you get conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck banishing 9/11 conspiracy theorists as traitors. Or the Daughters of Liberty banishing my Facebook friend Brooke Kelley because she is a Truther. This has driven them further underground and linked them up with dangerous nut bars, like Gary Franchie and his crew.

Left-of-center groups have taken what I think is the proper approach by trying to find work for them that their weird beliefs don't interfere with. On this point, I recommend Steve Philion's interview with Jerry Lembcke
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/02...rs-of-betrayal-and-today-s-anti-war-movement/

 

[dannyb]

I think you're misunderstanding what we're talking about here. It's exactly this difference that we're trying to understand. Why would it be possible for some to interpret an anti-war position in logical and rational terms that can be communicated fluently to someone who supports the war? Yet others who oppose war find this unconvincing and need to cloak it in mystical terms that imply conspiracy?

The presence of conspiracy theory in progressive political movements is a reality. Right-of-center political groups have generally handled the presence of conspiracy theory by banishing its advocates. Hence you get conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck banishing 9/11 conspiracy theorists as traitors. Or the Daughters of Liberty banishing my Facebook friend Brooke Kelley because she is a Truther. This has driven them further underground and linked them up with dangerous nut bars, like Gary Franchie and his crew.

Left-of-center groups have taken what I think is the proper approach by trying to find work for them that their weird beliefs don't interfere with. On this point, I recommend Steve Philion's interview with Jerry Lembcke
http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/02...rs-of-betrayal-and-today-s-anti-war-movement/

Sadly I cannot access your link at work, but I will do so later. I think conspiracy theories help people simplify complicated issues. Much easier to invoke the NWO than study geopolitics. Much easier to blame immigrants for society's problems than understand why they come in the first place. And so on.

Conspiracy theories are a disappointing, self serving aspect of political movements that achieve very little. The advent of the internet has obviously exacerbated them. I will never understand why someone would rather talk about nonsense conspiracy theories than discuss the many crimes of the US government that are not secret. But I digress.

I happen to think a lot of conspiracy theorists attach themselves to movements but are largely apolitical. Truthers profess to care about the victims, both American and foreign, but are largely ignorant to issues outside of North America.

I think banishing conspiracy theorists becomes a necessity given their dogmatic tendencies. There comes a point where you have to draw a line and stop entertaining stupidity.

 

[Fly Poster]

Sadly I cannot access your link at work, but I will do so later. I think conspiracy theories help people simplify complicated issues. Much easier to invoke the NWO than study geopolitics. Much easier to blame immigrants for society's problems than understand why they come in the first place. And so on.

Conspiracy theories are a disappointing, self serving aspect of political movements that achieve very little. The advent of the internet has obviously exacerbated them. I will never understand why someone would rather talk about nonsense conspiracy theories than discuss the many crimes of the US government that are not secret. But I digress.

I happen to think a lot of conspiracy theorists attach themselves to movements but are largely apolitical. Truthers profess to care about the victims, both American and foreign, but are largely ignorant to issues outside of North America.

I think banishing conspiracy theorists becomes a necessity given their dogmatic tendencies. There comes a point where you have to draw a line and stop entertaining stupidity.

Actually i am not so sure, I know a number of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and who are active politically on a lot of issues, yet not active or outspoken about 9/11 or 7/7 for that matter. I only found out recently that a friend of 10 years is a truther.
Another close friend of mine believes some of the CT's of 9/11, yet realises that even were it proven, it would change little, and so does not bother trying, yet she is very active politically on other issues.

In the City I am from, there is quite a large contingent of FOTL/Icke/CT types who just don't make their presence known in any of the anti-war/ UK Uncut/refugee support/anti-fascist movements I am involved in with one exception: The occupy camp out attracted a few, guess the whole 1% had resonance with NWO/illuminati stuff.

 

[Oystein]

...
What I am saying is that your initial thoughts on an age differential are more in-line with my experiences. Sure, there are a bunch of old hippies out there shooting their mouths off about 9/11 crap. But they are increasingly having to align themselves with right-wing nut bars to get anything done. As much as they don't do this, they just end up being crazy old hippies that everyone laughs at at.


I'm not sure it works like this. I'm not really sure what to say to this, but the idea of making lists of pros & cons then counting which side has a bigger number seems intuitively flawed as a method of charting the influence of a social movement.

Right-wing Truthers are now linked up with the American Patriot Movement and the Ron Paul Revolution. They have a legitimate political goal that attracts people whose identity is more firmly rooted in their conspiracy beliefs than in their politics. It is extremely common now to find Facebook pages of aged hippie-looking folks who otherwise seem very 'left-wing' with links to Ron Paul FB fan sites and other right-wing Christian FB groups. Examples of this abound among AE9/11T organizers.

As such, you see all kinds of whacko people who appear to think of themselves as leftists hanging around with and supporting the most right-wing of political movements. I wrote all about this in the post I refereed to above. In particular, I suggest this post about a WAC supporter, Brooke Kelly
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6718645#post6718645
I don't pay much attention to this anymore, but apparently Brooke has become more interested in Eastern spirituality these days.

A much better example of this left-right confusion comes from Canada. In Canada, we have your friends and mine Tony Hall and Josh Blakeney. On his FB, Josh calls himself a classical Marxist. Tony thinks he's a revolutionary calling for Indians to overthrow their colonial tyranny and making fun of the Tea Party. Yet Josh and Tony publish in Veteran's Today and hang out with Neo-Nazi Holocaust Deniers. Josh has other FB friends who are skinhead racists from WAC. A Truther friend of Josh runs a college radio show in which he cites right-wing American personalities such as Ron Paul, Sherri Tenpenny, Oath Keepers, Judge Napolitano, Jesse Ventura, Pastor Joe Fox from Viking Preparedness, and promoter of Freeman on the Land ideology Andrew Paterson...to name a few. At the same time, he broadcasts about how chemtrails are part of the attack on state-sponsored medical care in Canada. I'm sure he thinks he's a left-wing Truther. I think he's a conduit for the importation of the most right-wing American thought into Canada.

I have many examples of this.

This whole right-left stuff is flawed. Political opinions are multi-dimensional and several of the classical criteria to place people on a left-to-righ scale are surely only somewhat correlated. For example, you can easily lean communist in the economical arena and be anti-semitic. In fact, hostility towards Israel is a vey common denominator for both the extreme left and the extreme right. Here in Germany, my own perception of the left-right spectrum is not that of a straight line, but a horseshoe bent so much that the ends almost meet. Also, there is definitely activism in both camps here that seeks to unite the extremes in their fight against common enemies, of which there are plenty (democracy, USA, capitalism, Israel, police, EU, ...). I have a feeling that down at some unintellectual level, radicals are prone to switch between the extremes without ever visiting moderate positions. Some might not even know if they are left or right - they are just "against".

 

[MarkLindeman]

I don't think there's really much in Ryan's paper that addresses our discussion. He's talking about psychological aspects of processing that can lead to conspiracy thinking. Our discussion deals with this on a different level. Here I believe we are asking why those psychological mechanisms would develop more in some people than in others. Or why some of us have the ability to deal with them (more or less) when they occur.

Yes, I agree. Not only the statement I paraphrased, but much of the white paper characterizes elements that don't vary across people. This discussion is all about variance across people. However, especially when we're dealing with small n, I think we need to be careful not to ascribe to personal attributes what might better be explained by dumb luck. or exogenous factors. That's a methodological caution: it's always tricky to make inferences by selecting on the dependent variable. That's especially true when the question at hand touches on our vanity. Surely Mackey isn't really right when he says that "you too are capable of falling for conspiracy theories," is he?

That said, I think it makes sense to look for personal attributes (not necessarily fixed attributes) that make a difference.

Speaking of selection on the dependent variable, exactly what do you have in mind? It will matter whether we're looking at Truth Movement 'real-world' activists, Truth Movement posters, people who happen to believe or give some credence to Truth Movement claims, people who believe in many conspiracy theories generally.... (That reminds me: in my quick read of Mackey's paper, the oddest thing was his attribution of a trend in survey data to the impact of Loose Change. It's not obvious by what mechanism the release of Loose Change could have influenced tens of millions of opinions. At any rate, presumably it matters whether we're considering millions of people, or a relative handful.)

 

[Scott Sommers]

This whole right-left stuff is flawed. Political opinions are multi-dimensional and several of the classical criteria to place people on a left-to-righ scale are surely only somewhat correlated. For example, you can easily lean communist in the economical arena and be anti-semitic. In fact, hostility towards Israel is a vey common denominator for both the extreme left and the extreme right. Here in Germany, my own perception of the left-right spectrum is not that of a straight line, but a horseshoe bent so much that the ends almost meet. Also, there is definitely activism in both camps here that seeks to unite the extremes in their fight against common enemies, of which there are plenty (democracy, USA, capitalism, Israel, police, EU, ...). I have a feeling that down at some unintellectual level, radicals are prone to switch between the extremes without ever visiting moderate positions. Some might not even know if they are left or right - they are just "against".

First, this whole thing about the false nature of the left-right dichotomy is simply wrong. If you go read the thread I have linked to, there is a long discussion of this in relation to 9/11 conspiracy theories. The problem in general is one that we have also discussed here. It may make much more sense for Germans, living as you do in a highly structured welfare state. But in the USA, this argument is found almost exclusively on the extreme right as a way of interesting politically confused youth in ideas they would normally find repulsive. In fact, among the right-wing 9/11 Truthers that I study, the false nature of the dichotomy is often described as disinfo of the New World Order.

A full discussion of this is far beyond my ability to type in to little boxes on the JREF. It is also out of the scope of this thread.

Yes, I agree. Not only the statement I paraphrased, but much of the white paper characterizes elements that don't vary across people. This discussion is all about variance across people. However, especially when we're dealing with small n, I think we need to be careful not to ascribe to personal attributes what might better be explained by dumb luck. or exogenous factors. That's a methodological caution: it's always tricky to make inferences by selecting on the dependent variable. That's especially true when the question at hand touches on our vanity. Surely Mackey isn't really right when he says that "you too are capable of falling for conspiracy theories," is he?

I agree with Ryan on many things. This is not one of them. I do think there are people whose lives insulate them from conspiracy theory thinking. They may occasionally stray into this zone, as I have sometimes, but they have mechanisms in their lives that stop this.

That said, I think it makes sense to look for personal attributes (not necessarily fixed attributes) that make a difference. Speaking of selection on the dependent variable, exactly what do you have in mind? It will matter whether we're looking at Truth Movement 'real-world' activists, Truth Movement posters, people who happen to believe or give some credence to Truth Movement claims, people who believe in many conspiracy theories generally.... (That reminds me: in my quick read of Mackey's paper, the oddest thing was his attribution of a trend in survey data to the impact of Loose Change. It's not obvious by what mechanism the release of Loose Change could have influenced tens of millions of opinions. At any rate, presumably it matters whether we're considering millions of people, or a relative handful.)

I do not fully understand this problem. My work has focused almost exclusively on political activists involved with organized conspiracy groups. I can't really say I know very much about the conspiracy beliefs of ordinary people. The psychological research that is being done right now on the personality attributes of conspiracy theory advocates is being done by personality researchers who have little understandably of the dynamics of the beliefs of conspiracy theorists. I don't think they fully understand what they're doing and are falling into that trap that many a psychologist has fallen for of just handing out surveys and making a model out of the results.

If I continue studying the development of conspiracy beliefs, I think there's a lot of exploratory work that needs to be done first. I don't feel that any of the measurement instruments that are in use today examining irrational or conspiracy beliefs can be very helpful with this. They need to be redesigned properly before any meaningful results can be gathered from them. Following this, I'd like to look at the early development of these beliefs in teens.

Returning to your question about dependent variables, I am increasingly convinced conspiracy belief overlaps with other crazy belief systems, and perhaps even with conventional religious beliefs. As I posted before, I am now going through the list of contacts that AE9/11T has posted on their website. One of the surprising things about this is the number of them who are linked to Tea Party groups and support Ron Paul. While it remains widely believed on the JREF that there are all these "old hippies" out there supporting the 9/11 Truth, there activists seem increasingly drawn from the extreme right-wing.

 

[Oystein]

First, this whole thing about the false nature of the left-right dichotomy is simply wrong. If you go read the thread I have linked to, there is a long discussion of this in relation to 9/11 conspiracy theories. The problem in general is one that we have also discussed here. It may make much more sense for Germans, living as you do in a highly structured welfare state. But in the USA, this argument is found almost exclusively on the extreme right as a way of interesting politically confused youth in ideas they would normally find repulsive. In fact, among the right-wing 9/11 Truthers that I study, the false nature of the dichotomy is often described as disinfo of the New World Order.
...

Uhm... I read this discussion. It isn't long, and it doesn't support your point of view. In fact, the only one fully supporting your point of view is you. Others report that they see lefties engaged in 9/11 activism. A couple say something along my lines: That some truthers that appear to be more in the right profess positions on some political issues that are assocuated with the left; or more specifically: That libertarianism blurs the left-right dichotomy.

Interestingly...

...
First, what do we mean by Left/Right? And what would make a 'left-wing' Truther? Do they have long hair and do drugs? Do they seem "pretty cool", as one member of JREF described to me in PM discussion of why Truthers are left? All of this has nothing to do with what I mean by Left/Right, nor does who they vote for. I'm not going to get into what I mean by the Right when say that 911 Truth is dominated by Right-Wing ideology. We can start a new thread somewhere else, but by then, I'm sure I'll have lost interest in this again.
...

...you assert the right to make claims without defining the key terms in your claims.

Sorry for calling you on that. I think you have a pet theory, and difficulties accepting that you have your blinders on.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Uhm... I read this discussion. It isn't long, and it doesn't support your point of view. In fact, the only one fully supporting your point of view is you. Others report that they see lefties engaged in 9/11 activism. A couple say something along my lines: That some truthers that appear to be more in the right profess positions on some political issues that are assocuated with the left; or more specifically: That libertarianism blurs the left-right dichotomy.

...you assert the right to make claims without defining the key terms in your claims.

Sorry for calling you on that. I think you have a pet theory, and difficulties accepting that you have your blinders on.

You seem to have misunderstood the thread. Perhaps this is because most of here are either Americans or Canadians very well acquainted with American politics.

Of course there are left-wing Truthers. There are lots of them. That's not the issue. The issue concerns the dominant political direction of 9/11 conspiracy. Since the election of that African-American guy who talks about health care and gun control, prominent left-wing Truthers have by-and-large disappeared. I don't know if you are aware, but back in 2008, just prior to the Presidential election, numerous prominent Hollywood personalities who support the Democrats spoke out about a 9/11 conspiracy. After that Black guy got elected, they all went silent. I wrote about this in my Skeptic article.

I have no doubt that Gage sees himself as a very liberal kind of Christian fellow. I am sure he sees AE9/11T as promoting these values. He has claimed that he used to vote Democrat. I believe him. But he is now routinely involved with the darkest elements of the American right-wing. As I pointed out earlier, many of the contacts listed on his AE9/11T website are hard-core right-wing activists. Others who clearly believe they are left-wing people are now supporting Ron Paul who is a right-wing Christian who believes in dismantling the state welfare system. James Fetzer, on one hand writes a book attacking the American right-wing Christians, and on the other now supports Ron Paul.

So my point is that the direction of 9/11 conspiracy in the USA is one that forces its members, no matter what they think they are, to associate with the right wing - and not the left wing of American politics.

But I've said all this before many, many, many, many times. I'm sure you've read it, as well.

 

[Oystein]

I am not denying that it is possible to talk about left- and right-wing politics, and surely many people can be classified on that axis without much ado. Also I am not going to deny that, as far as visibility of truthers is concerned, things have shifted somewhat since the change in the White House. But the leftists have not disappeared. Except maybe for the two or threee Hollywood figures. But did they really ever count? In the other thread, someone characterized DRG or Kevin Barrett as leftists, and those truth leaders are still around.
Sure, Gage is hanging with right-wingers theses days, but ... where is, for example, Nation of Islam on that spectrum? An audience on which the seed of twoof may find fertile ground, not? NoI has some extreme right-wing aspects (racism), but also some that would conventionally be more associated with left-extremism.

What I am arguing against is using "left vs. right" as a criterion in this debate. I have a hunch that it could be more fruitful to look at the types of political grievances that may be typical among truthers, and I can imagine that they have other things more in common than a label of "right-wing".

ETA:

...
Others who clearly believe they are left-wing people are now supporting Ron Paul who is a right-wing Christian who believes in dismantling the state welfare system. James Fetzer, on one hand writes a book attacking the American right-wing Christians, and on the other now supports Ron Paul.

Exactly! Maybe you really need to awake to the possibility that libertarianism isn't on, but off, the conventional left-right axis of American politics!

So my point is that the direction of 9/11 conspiracy in the USA is one that forces its members, no matter what they think they are, to associate with the right wing - and not the left wing of American politics.

This is a little trivial I think...

But I've said all this before many, many, many, many times. I'm sure you've read it, as well.

RedIbis, Clayton Moore or Christopher7 have said their opinions many, many, many, many times as well. Hasn't worked to convince me

 

[Scott Sommers]

I am not denying that it is possible to talk about lef- and right-wing politics, and surely many people can be classified on that axis without much ado. Also I am not going to deny that, as far as visibility of truthers is concerned, things have shifted somewhat. But the leftists have not disappeared. In the other thread, someone characterized DRG or Kevin Barrett as leftists, and those truth leaders are still around.
Sure, Gage is hanging with right-wingers theses days, but ... where is Nation of Islam on that spectrum? An audience on which the seed of twoof may find fertile ground, not? NoI has some extreme right-wing aspects (racism), but also some that would conventionally be more associated with left-extremism.

What I am arguing against is using "left vs. right" as a criterion in this debate. I have a hunch that it could be more fruitful to look at the types of political grievances that may be typical among truthers, and I can imagine that they have other things more in common than a label of "right-wing".

It is my experience that Europeans on this forum have a much tougher time getting around my argument. I have a lot of European friends, but I can't say I have any sense of how they think about politics. NoI is one of thousands of talks that Gage has given. He has spoken to other Islamic groups. Muslims in the USA overwhelmingly vote for Obama. I do not know how members of the NoI vote. Nor do I think talking about them is very fruitful for this discussion.

Once again, there are many left-wing Truthers. There always have been and always will be. That is not my point. My point is that Gage and his crowd are increasingly being forced to deal with dark elements of the Right because it is there they have to go to get the resources - be they money, people, time or political influence - that they need to continue operating.

The result of this is people who think they are hard-core leftists are voting for candidates from the extreme wing of the Christian right because they believe they support a new 9/11 investigation. I have spoken to people who tell me they want free health care in the USA but support Ron Paul because "he seems like the best of them all."

It is never the other way around. There are no right-wing 9/11 Truthers voting for Obama because they think he is the candidate for a 9/11 Truth - not even one.