911 Truthers: Useful idiots? (bit of an essay :)

[Confuseling]

Hello all...

I hope this post, my first, finds you all well. I hope it isn't in the wrong spot (thought about conspiracy theories, but I figure this is so far on the political end it'll find its audience here, and I couldn't find a prior thread), and lastly, although I think the subject is contentious, I hope you will believe me that this is intended purely in the spirit of discussion, and not to ruffle any feathers for its own sake.

My question is this: Are Truthers just useful idiots? By which I mean: Are they unwittingly serving some kind of covert political purpose?

Speculative? Perhaps... But I'm certainly not the first to notice that this mass movement (not that massive, and shrinking, but I'd say it qualifies), is serving brilliantly to divert attention from the actual interesting questions about 911, defence against asymmetric enemies, and foreign relations.

Now we could perhaps posit two theories here, and, pace trutherism, assign them tortuous acronyms: MEHOAI and LEHOAI. Make 'Em Harp On Ad Infinitum would involve feeding false information to new media, or perhaps disinformation agents manipulating opinions on messageboards. It's certainly not impossible, but it seems rather far fetched, and too far beyond the realms of evidence to warrant much thought.

But what of Let 'Em Harp On Ad Infinitum? Isn't it distinctly possible - perhaps even a reasonable assumption - that information exists that could blow a lot of these fantasies out of the water, but that it is a low risk strategy, and one in full pursuance of the interest of those that hold it, to not release it?

Conversely, would it perhaps make sense for government sponsored engineers in a 'hostile' entity that doesn't have its own reasons for basking in a tide of anti-Zionist propaganda (perhaps China?) to chip in and dispel any obvious misconceptions, and deflect attention back to focused criticism of Western governments? Can we expect a 'Red' NIST report?

What is the natural demographic of trutherism? They seem to be led by many far-right nutters, but most of the rank and file seem to be disaffected leftists or greens, so isn't it sensible to ask who benefits from their continued existence, and their continued refusal to engage in meaningful political discussion?

Any thoughts?

ETA: Of course the single best thing about this, were any of it true, would be being able to tell truthers that they're Cheney's patsies. Tehehe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Any thoughts?

ETA: Of course the single best thing about this, were any of it true, would be being able to tell truthers that they're Cheney's patsies. Tehehe.

Anti establishment sentiment takes many forms. Fight the Power. Stick it to the man. Power to the People. The World Can't Wait. Ban the Bomb. Save the Whales. Flat Tax. The Only Good Government is No Government. Steal this Book.

Pick one, and stagger about under its banner. No thought required, when you operate in slogans.

Troofers As Cheney's Pawns: the ultimately ironic false flag. The tactic is not all that far fetched: set up a parody of opposition to discredit opposition in general. Cindy Sheehan was almost too good to be true, at least some of her utterances were.

DR

 

[gumboot]

The 9/11 Truth Movement latched onto this notion a long time ago. Of course in their version of reality the "actual interesting questions about 911" that the "disinfo shills" are smothering with their lunatic theories are just whatever their own pet lunatic theory is.

Frankly that's all the answer to your question that's needed.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Frankly that's all the answer to your question that's needed.

Well, pardon me for responding, mate.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Are Truthers just useful idiots? By which I mean: Are they unwittingly serving some kind of covert political purpose?

It's always funny to see that everything is either Left or Right.
Truthers are mainly a cultural thingy. (Distrust towards the US government comes to mind as a basic source)

Do they have any purpose or political influence? - Well, no. At least not yet.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do they have any purpose or political influence? - Well, no. At least not yet.

Purpose? Yes. In Dylan Avery's case, follow the $$. Likewise with radio show host Alex Jone$.

Political influence? They convinced Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell to spew their excerement to the sheeple who watch their TV based blathering, and so they spread, successfully, a modest/small amount of viral doubt about the government's credibility.

DR

 

[Quad4_72]

Truthers serve no political purpose whatsoever. They represent a miniscule percentage of the population, hold no power, are mainly an internet species, and have the intelligence capacity of chimps. They are nothing more than a nuisance on logic and reason.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Truthers serve no political purpose whatsoever. They represent a miniscule percentage of the population, hold no power, are mainly an internet species, and have the intelligence capacity of chimps. They are nothing more than a nuisance on logic and reason.

They attract the media here and there.

Likewise, their poison creeps into the public debate.

If your son or daughter went to Texas A & M, would you be happy that your child was learning economics from Morgan Reynolds? Have you see the crap he puts onto the internet?

Ever seen a professor use a classroom as a bully pulpit?

There is nothing so powerful (and some say dangerous) as an idea.

Want an example?

From the perspective of the Roman Empire in about 90 AD/CE, look at how an underground, subversive idea spread. In two centuries, you could say it infected the heart of the Roman Empire.

It was called Christianity.

Ideas spread much faster these days.

DR

 

[Quad4_72]

They attract the media here and there.

Likewise, their poison creeps into the public debate.

If your son or daughter went to Texas A & M, would you be happy that your child was learning economics from Morgan Reynolds? Have you see the crap he puts onto the internet?

Ever seen a professor use a classroom as a bully pulpit?

There is nothing so powerful (and some say dangerous) as an idea.

Want an example?

From the perspective of the Roman Empire in about 90 AD/CE, look at how an underground, subversive idea spread. In two centuries, you could say it infected the heart of the Roman Empire.

It was called Christianity.

Ideas spread much faster these days.

DR

Yes ideas can indeed be very dangerous, especially when 1/4 of the population is retarded (South Park). I would be pretty pissed if my son was learning physics from liar Jones or economics from Reynolds.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I've found the troofers useful because, in debating them, I have been forced to examine the issues (political and otherwise) closely. I've come away being perhaps more critical of the Bush administration's handling of the tragedy than I had been, but certainly haven't been swayed to believe any of their "inside job" nonsense.

 

[gumboot]

Well, pardon me for responding, mate.

DR

I meant that was all the answer that was needed from me.

 

[Confuseling]

...
Troofers As Cheney's Pawns: the ultimately ironic false flag. The tactic is not all that far fetched: set up a parody of opposition to discredit opposition in general. Cindy Sheehan was almost too good to be true, at least some of her utterances were.

DR

There was suggestion in the film JFK if I recall that one of the prosecution witnesses was a plant, sent to discredit their case by attesting that he had his daughter fingerprinted when she came back from uni to check she wasn't a doppelganger.

Probably just as accurate as most history Oliver Stone style, but it illustrates the point.

The 9/11 Truth Movement latched onto this notion a long time ago. Of course in their version of reality the "actual interesting questions about 911" that the "disinfo shills" are smothering with their lunatic theories are just whatever their own pet lunatic theory is.

Frankly that's all the answer to your question that's needed.

I am perfectly well aware that this is a common argument in truther factionalism, and in fact that's probably what got me thinking along these lines in the first place.

I guess I'm just thinking that if I were a centre-right apparatchik, seeing a little seam of 'unanswered' questions nestling among the unanswerable ones, and having some little tidbit of information in my possession that could dispel a few or disappear down the memory hole, my first thought would be: "What effect are these people actually having?" I freely admit, it's speculation, but I don't think all speculation is useless.

...Political influence? They convinced Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell to spew their excerement to the sheeple who watch their TV based blathering, and so they spread, successfully, a modest/small amount of viral doubt about the government's credibility.

I suppose though the operative point is that they spread doubt about government credibility generally (the conspiracy is so darn obvious, why won't the dems do anything about it? Must be Skull & Bones...), and create political cynicism, detachment and apathy.

If, as is my assumption, they suck more people out of centre-left political engagement / voting than centre-right, they shift the centre rightwards.

Maybe this is a UK biased perspective? Do you guys reckon that more of them are soft left / green than anything else? Does anyone know of statistics?

I've found the troofers useful because, in debating them, I have been forced to examine the issues (political and otherwise) closely. I've come away being perhaps more critical of the Bush administration's handling of the tragedy than I had been, but certainly haven't been swayed to believe any of their "inside job" nonsense.

Indeed, as JS Mill said, even an idiot can sharpen debate. (I paraphrase, of course ) If nothing else, they provide a point around which the idiocy can nucleate; a sort of "Doh!" lightning conductor.

But yes, you are right, they do create suspicion of neocon agendas, and this counterbalances my original point. I just wonder which effect is bigger?

Thankyou all for interesting discussion.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Maybe this is a UK biased perspective? Do you guys reckon that more of them are soft left / green than anything else? Does anyone know of statistics?

Not a few trend toward White Nationalists, others anarchic libertarians, and others hard left anti establishment types. It's a mixed bag. I don't see Greens as a major label in the Troofer movement.

DR

 

[ElMondoHummus]

To answer the OP: I see conspiracy fantasists as useful idiots, but not in a broad, political was in the manner that Lenin suggests. Rather, they're useful idiots in a mundane, unimportant sense.

For one, they provide an audience for the major leading members of the so-called truth movement to burnish their ego against, which provides an odd feedback effect of allowing the members to burnish their own egos against the bulwark of those leading members. Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, etc. etc., would simply be nobody without the followers of their specific threads of fantasy. Gage's and Steven Jones's speaking engagements basically allow the listeners to think they're hearing accurate and vitally important information, while those crowds allow Gage and Jones to believe their onto something impressive. Alex Jones... well, I think he'd be a bullhorn in a vacuum if he were the only man alive in the universe, but I still think the audience provides something of an ego boost for that man. At any rate, the leading member - following truther interaction is basically a loop for ego stimulation.

In another way, each truther sort of reinforces anothers sense of community and mission. They believe they're onto the "truth", and given the relative dearth of local support for any individual member, the internet truther community allows each fantasist a feeling of belonging. That in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing; we here in this forum have a similar sense. But it is an element of exploitation in that many members use such "membership" in the movement to foward personal stances about government and society in general, and use such membership as an excuse for some out-of-the-ordinary public behavior (just watch videos of truthers interrupting an event). That's the "mission" part of the equation.

I initially had a third "useful idiot" characterization to put down, but as I'm writing stream-of-consciousness, I have already forgotten it (should've jotted the things down before composing...). I'll post a followup if I remember it.

Anyway, yes, truthers are a sort of unique category of "useful idiot". It's just that their category isn't the grand sort of "Fellow Traveller" idiot from the old Communist days, it's a rather lesser sort of idiot. One who's utility only exists in the isolated sturm und drang created by their misinterpretations of the events of 9/11, and is really only exploited by other members who accept those same misinterpretations.

 

[Drudgewire]

911 Truthers: Useful idiots?

I can't vouch for their usefulness, but certainly the second part is inarguable.

 

[Confuseling]

Not a few trend toward White Nationalists, others anarchic libertarians, and others hard left anti establishment types. It's a mixed bag. I don't see Greens as a major label in the Troofer movement.

DR

Hmm. Well, I was probably playing a bit fast and loose with language; probably ill-advised on a forum where pedantry isn't so much considered a desirable characteristic as a door policy.

But you're right, and I'm not accusing you of pedantry... or I am, but in a good way.

I guess what I was alluding to is what Oliver suggested above, that it's in large part a cultural thing, mistrust of capitalism and authority (and not a little misology), rather than a simple left / right distinction.

The person I'm thinking of probably spent his/her early twenties travelling around India and Thailand, is profoundly wary of big industry, owns a well thumbed copy of The Celestine Prophecy, doesn't quite understand their quirky middle-class misuse of the word 'holistic', and while not necessarily owning any crystals for their therapeutic value definitely thinks there might be something in it.

This person exists somewhere on a vague left / green axis, I would say, and certainly isn't a dyed-in-the-woo truther, but may be receptive to their ideas.

I don't think the hard left or dark green would set much store in conspiracism; I suppose they have their own worries, and believe in structural explanations and collectivist solutions, so aren't so given to knee-jerk fear of government.

What I don't really see is the white nationalist and libertarian wing of this rogues gallery. We certainly have many fewer libertarians in western Europe, and I think nationalism is considered more of a dirty word; we do have our nationalists and racists, but they're perhaps less vocal (and mostly more atlanticist).

To answer the OP: I see conspiracy fantasists as useful idiots, but not in a broad, political was in the manner that Lenin suggests. Rather, they're useful idiots in a mundane, unimportant sense.

For one, they provide an audience for the major leading members of the so-called truth movement to burnish their ego against, which provides an odd feedback effect of allowing the members to burnish their own egos against the bulwark of those leading members. Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, etc. etc., would simply be nobody without the followers of their specific threads of fantasy. Gage's and Steven Jones's speaking engagements basically allow the listeners to think they're hearing accurate and vitally important information, while those crowds allow Gage and Jones to believe their onto something impressive. Alex Jones... well, I think he'd be a bullhorn in a vacuum if he were the only man alive in the universe, but I still think the audience provides something of an ego boost for that man. At any rate, the leading member - following truther interaction is basically a loop for ego stimulation...

In the spirit of pedantry, just wanted to point our that although Lenin certainly thought about useful idiots, the phrase itself is thought attributed to him in error.

It is sad though, watching the truthers at work; so much misplaced youthful passion. Also probably a factor in me thinking about the OP.

They've mutated into some aberrant mirror-inversion of their own wildly misconceived notion of ideological gatekeepers. They sit inside a mental prison of their own device, proudly jangling the keys, inert save for the occasional cry of "Wake up sheeple!" directed at the rest of us as we continue merrily along our daily lives. History repeating itself as farce, perhaps.

I think you're right about the ego-massaging element of climbing through looking glasses. It just makes you wonder why they haven't noticed they're standing in a pile of dust and dead spiders.

There are books to be written about truther psychology, I'm sure of that.

People have often remarked that it's comforting to believe in some kind of overarching order and control, rather than a vaguely emergent structure borne of chaos. That seems true. I also have a pet theory that people believe in conspiracies in part because of cognitive dissonance. If they believe themselves and the people around them to be basically good, but fear and despise the behaviours of authorities (a sort of perceived kakistocracy), it's perhaps easier to believe some diabolical cabal has subverted democracy than to accept that power attracts and breeds corruption, or that we simply voluntarily elect people with these undesirable streaks. I suppose it also helps if you can blame failure in your own life on secret societies.

(Thanks for the phrases sturm und drang and fellow traveller too, they're new to me.)

 

[INRM]

I used to be a 9/11 Truther.

I remember being told that people who proposed other theories like the government let it happen on purpose even, or the official theory in the groups we were members of were either useful idiots or were an example of a COINTELPRO kind of thing.

But I'm wondering if the 9/11 Truth movement was the COINTELPRO... making anyone who proposed any theory in question of 9/11 (not necessarily radical stuff, but the fact that the government did seem to go out of its way to ignore evidence of an attack, or even small pieces of information that don't all add up) look like a complete nutjob.

I no longer believe the WTC was imploded with demolition charges, and the planes flown into it were rigged to fly as drones, btw.


This is kind of like hearing the words of a person who was once a member of a cult coming out and criticizing the cult. At least I hope it comes off this way.