Sunday, September 30, 2007

A Tranny becomes re-attached: A few notes on "conspiracy culture"

Mike Metzger, a leading figure within the New York 9/11 "truth" movement, has rejoined reality. Visit his blog, "Confessions of an Ex-Truther":
...I watched a movie called Screw Loose Change. I expected it to point out a few corrections in some minor details of the film. To my surprise, it contested just about every claim in the entire movie. I was a bit shocked.
There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers.
The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen, who apparently ordered Larry Silverstein to "pull" Building 7. The truthers' misrepresentation of Silverstein's quote is one of the most popular "facts" to spit out, but in doing so, you are effectively in agreement that firefighters were not only involved in the controlled demolition of WTC7, but they are also aiding and abetting in the government's cover-up. Yeah, every firefighter who was out there on 9/11 is going to be complicit in the MURDER OF 343 OF THEIR FALLEN BROTHERS! To quote Loose Change co-creator Jason Bermas, "the firefighters are paid off."

This is absolute horseshit, which brings me to why I've formally distanced myself from this sorry excuse for a movement. Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, Alex Jones, and all the other kooks out there are fucking lying about, distorting, and misrepresenting the facts to further their personal agendas. And what is their agenda, you ask? Money, in the words of Shaggy 2 Dope, "mutha fuckin bitch ass money." Not only are they desecrating 3,000 graves, but they are profiting off of it.
They're in it for the money. How fair is this claim?

I am in both a good and bad position to make an assessment. Good, because I've nosed around the conspiracy buff subculture since the 1980s. Bad, because I've stayed away from the 9/11 crowd, and I have no idea how much paranoia peddlers of that stripe make from the sales of t-shirts, videos and so forth. So I bring historical perspective. Perhaps a reader can provide a more authoritative view of the subculture's current financial status.

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

One often used to hear the words "They're in it to make money" muttered against the JFK assassination researchers, back in the pre-net days when the only way for them to find an audience was via the bookstore. Of course, such accusations are often leveled against anyone who writes any book for any reason, because the average person thinks that all writers earn the kind of royalties paid to Ms. Rowling and Mr. King. JFK books sold well at times when outside events -- the Garrison inquiry, the HSCA, the release of the films Executive Action and JFK -- created a renewed interest in the case. At all other times, such works netted their authors very little.

Such was the situation between 1963 and 1980-something, when the conspiratorial subculture, such as it was, was very sub indeed. But as the 1980s segued into the 1990s, society changed. Underground notions went mainstream. The X-Files was on the air and in the air.

We saw the rise of conspiracy-oriented conventions and lectures. Cheaply-produced conspiracy videos sold well, especially when the internet helped these wares find a market.

At that time, far-right radio hosts found themselves with hours to fill and an audience that needed ever-stronger jolts of outrage. The professional Clinton-haters handed microphones to Illuminati-spotters and other out-and-out cranks. Anyone whipping up hatred of "the gummint" got airtime -- after all, Clinton was the gummint, and all weapons were fair against the Beast From Arkansas. Newt could not have achieved his 1994 "revolution" without the angst produced by the fearmongers.

Suddenly, one could earn a living peddling fear. Not a big living, but enough to forestall the need to hand a resume to the local Burger King manager.

That was the situation a decade ago. Where are we now?

At least one responsible and gifted left-wing blogger who (barely) makes a living from his political work has privately told me that he considers the 9/11 "truth movement" to be filled with "bullshit." But he will not attack this movement. Not on the radio, not in his lectures, not on his blog. Indeed, his site has published (in his absence) material favoring this particular brand of "bullshit."

Why is he silent on the subject? I am not sure, but if I were in his position -- if my ability to pay the landlord depended on keeping my readership stats at a certain level -- I'd be silent too. I would not want to piss off so vocal a part of the audience.

So, yeah. Money does play a role.

I know of one reactionary conspiracy salesman working the Satanism angle who continues to push a nonsensical theory about (ooh, shudder!) Aleister Crowley. He does so even though the originator of that theory has privately explained to him that the "investigative report" at the root of the whole matter was published on April 1. The salesman knows damn well that he is peddling lies. Alas, rent must needs be paid.

Am I saying that all conspiracy theories are bunk? No. There is indeed a covert world out there filled with spooks and criminals and all sorts of shady characters. But the current crop of plot-spotter buffs will never get anywhere near that underworld.

In fact, they provide cover for it. Trust me, this I know: Real covert operatives love it when members of the general public become engrossed by fanciful claims involving Freemasons and Zeta Reticulans and Satanists and whatnot. When folks get sidetracked by that nonsense, they begin to find the antics of real-world spies rather tedious.

Things have changed since the 1980s. Goodbye, Jim Hougan: Hello, Alex Jones. Goodbye, Kevin Coogan: Hello Tom Flocco. Goodbye, Dick Russell: Hello, Jim Fetzer. Goodbye, Jim DiEugenio: Hello, Michael Collins Piper. Goodbye Covert Action Information Bulletin: Hello, Paranoia magazine.

By today's standards, the "wild" conspiratologists of yore -- Lyndon LaRouche, Robert Anton Wilson, Mae Brussell -- would be considered conservative fuddy duddies.

If I wanted to earn "quit your day-job" money from this blog, I'd have to turn dope-dealer; I'd have to provide the 9/11 trannies and the Dem-haters and the supernaturalists and the alien-spotters with their fix. I would tell people that voting is pointless because the game is rigged. Fear is a rush. Hopelessness sells. I don't know why, but it does.

The addict says:

"The CIA killed JFK? Hey, that's old shit, man! Hit me with the good stuff!"

The peddler replies:

"Have an armful of Roswell, kid. And here's a nice shot of Illimunati. Check out the Palladium. Have you tried The Protocols? Nesta Webster and David Icke -- take 'em together and they're guaranteed to send you sailing..."

"Oh yeah!" says the addict. "That's some good shit! But I need more. Have you got any of that Fetzer stuff?"

"Which kind do you want, kid? You want the bottle marked 'space lasers on 9/11' or the bottle marked 'moon landing was faked'?"

"Both, dude! And throw in a few tablets from the 'phony Z-film' jar."

"Kid, I got just the stuff you're looking for: A pure shot of Grade-A Milton William Cooper. But I gotta warn ya -- this isn't for beginners..."

"YEAH! THAT'S IT! THAT'S WHAT I NEED! PUT IT IN MY ARM -- NOW NOW NOW!!"

So that's the sitch. Money does play a role within this wretched subculture. I'm poor because I won't turn pusher. But -- I must confess -- I am often tempted.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Everyone has a right to their own opinion

Anonymous said...

"The truthers will just tell you that all the experts are "in on it." Yeah, sure. Every engineer in the world is complicit in the government's murder of 3,000 people. And so are the firemen.."

Who are these straw men err.. I mean 'truthers' making these claims?

Anonymous said...

Joe,

The envy in your post is unfounded. No one is getting rich peddling the many bullshit 9/11 conspiracy videos, so you can stop patting yourself on the back for not becoming a 'pusher'.

There are several people trying to eek out an existence doing so, but no one is getting rich. Try not to fall prey to the same type of bullshit memes you are at pains to discredit on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Metzgers rant shows he's either ingorant or lying. Archeitects & Engineers have an excelent website with numerous members who question how the WTC buildings fell.

Clayton said...

Everyone has a right to their own opinion

But if you try to present opinion as fact prepare to be called on your shit. If I tried to write a college essay and only used opinion in a college english class, I would fail for simply not following directions.

I remember first hearing about Alex Jones speak back in the 90's, and he sounded paranoid to me in regards to Clinton and domestic military actions. At the time I was a fan of 2600, the hacker quarterly. i had no skills or ambitions in this area, just an interest. But boy did I get upset at reading about the telecommunications act of 1996 and how it supposedly allowed our govt to just "plug in" a wiretap. If memory serves it required all the phone companies to redo their hardware for easier access, paid for by tax breaks or tax dollars. So maybe Alex Jones was maybe right about something.

Then I listened to his stuff on 9/11. Ok a little out there, but interesting. So I listened to his podcasts, 2 to be exact. The 2nd one Alex spent about 10 or so minutes irately yelling into the mic how HE was the first to cover it. Where was the credit he was due. I quickly realized he is self centered ass, who probably suffers from a
narcissistic personality disorder
. I watched screw loose change, and OH MY GOD it changed my mind completely. BTW, If your gonna use white supremacists as your fact sources you loose all credibility.

Opinion is not fact.

Joseph Cannon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Cannon said...

"Who are these straw men err.. I mean 'truthers' making these claims?"

In my experience, anyone who says anything the trannies dislike will be denounced by CDers as being part of the conspriacy. I have been so denounced. So have all the witnesses who saw an AA jet hit the Pentagon. So have all the doctors who IDed the bodies.

Metzger quotes Bermas making an absurd and reprehensibly paranoid claim about the firemen -- or didn't you notice?

"There are several people trying to eek out an existence doing so, but no one is getting rich."

I never claimed that anyone was getting rich. I wish that you had read the rest of my post -- do try to follow the jump before replying -- because you would have seen that I know my way around these areas. Better than you might imagine, in fact. One day, I may tell the full story.

It is indeed true that few can achieve wealth by peddling conspiracy theories. The only ones who can manage that trick usually combine conspiracism with religion. (I'm thinking here about guys like Texe Marrs or Pat Robertson or Tim LaHaye.) All I said was that, after the 1980s, it became possible to earn a living with this stuff.

Here are my actual words:

"Suddenly, one could earn a living peddling fear. Not a big living, but enough to forestall the need to hand a resume to the local Burger King manager."

These words coincide with what you have stipulated. In the future, I will thank you to reply to the words I have actually written, as opposed to the words you THINK I have written.

I'd also like to remind everyone of Kissinger's favorite quote: "University politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Something similar obtains in the conspiracy community, where vicious people fight for a relatively small market share.

As for the Architects and Engineers site: Not a single expert in controlled demolition in the world agrees with them. The true CD experts presented utterly opposite opinions in their journal Implosion World. One of the main honchos of the A&E site is (you should pardon the expression) demolished...here:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/06/yet-another-dumb-journo-falls-for.html

And here:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/08/richard-gages-figleaf.html

And here:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search?q=architects+and+engineers

One brief excerpt should prove the point:

"Later on at the 22:30 mark Gage continues: "Molten iron is the product of the incendiary thermite, a cutter charge which is used in many controlled demolitions".

"MANY CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS!!?? Could this esteemed architect please point us to a single controlled demolition which has used thermite, much less "many' of them? I am sorry, but this guy is an idiot. I would never enter a building which he had designed."

(End quote; JC again) Gage seems to be the "voice" of A&E, and everything he says strikes me as inane. My god, it has been established beyond the point of reasonable debate that thermite is not used in controlled demolitions. Gage also says that fire cannot cause steel to lose its integrity. Unreal!

Joseph Cannon said...

Regarding the A&E site: Turns out the impressive list of Engineers who have singed on includes such esteemed names as Barney Rubble, Ron Jeremy, and Robin Hood.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Architects%20and%20Engineers

Actually, I've met Ron Jeremy. He's funny as hell. If A&E really did have him on board, they'd be the coolest group in conspiracy-land.

All right, I admit that these names were probably pranks and should not have been held against Gage and co. But their list also apparently includes one or two names that no-one has been able to confirm.

And if Gage is the best those guys can come up with -- well, color me unimpressed.

Anonymous said...

Avid reader of this site, enjoy the commentary. I'm a fan of toning down the rhetoric surrounding that 9/11 event. I guess being objective is out of the question for a small, yet vocal segment of the population (either side of the equation). You have to admit that. I, personally, don't think it's a contest and the ones in riot gear on both sides should be ashamed of themselves.

Hyperman said...

I think only a few people in the world know the whole story about 9/11. And somebody who proclaim that he knows everything about that event is a little bit like someone who would claim to know the same about JFK assassination.

I agree that the amateur "truther" movement is not helping the cause of truth at all on this issue. With their typical paranoia (like accusing everybody who contradict them to be a "shill" of the government) and a great difficulty to look at evidence that contradict the dogma of that movement (like CD), they are not helping at all their cause.

The truth is easier to find without name calling, ad hominem attacks, ideology, partisanship, dogma and fanatics. When you stop asking questions, it becomes a religion.

Anonymous said...

What bothers me is the lack of perspective.

Did JFK researchers make some money on books? Some did, of course (Mark Lane, maybe); others did not.

However, it's not like there wasn't a far more vast financial interest on the flip side, meaning the MIC, military industrial complex, and their desire to have the Vietnam War, to which JFK strongly objected. That conflict cost over $100 billion in '60s dollars, flowing to Bell Helicopter, Brown and Root, General Dynamics, and various and sundry other contracting interests, and the Wall Street financial firms with large interests in the same.

Same thing with global warming, and the same thing with 9/11, in spades.

With the demise of the Cold War, and the dissolving of the USSR, the MIC lost a credible menace to justify any increase, or even maintenance, of the $300 billion dollar defense budget. 'The peace dividend' was widely discussed, that we should be easily able to greatly lower defense spending without any detriment to our security, because we'd lost the world-wide menace of world Communism and the very 'Evil Empire' itself.

Leaving aside the truth or falsity of the various competing 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is abundantly clear that the 9/11 attack, and its tendentious interpretation, was used to justify a near 50% INCREASE in the military budget (although for things that bear little or no relationship to fighting the alleged al-Qaeda foe).

So, if some authors or website hosts scrape out a few dollars out of their theorizing, and that is used to impeach their credibility, how much more impeachable would parties making billions of dollars off the official story's implications be?

sofla

Anonymous said...

I don't know. It seems that there are a fair number of qualified people calling for a new independent investigation. (patriotsquestion911).

They're calling for an independent investigation. What's wrong with that?

I wouldn't mind knowing a little more, a little more objectively about the questions that bother so many qualified and unqualified people. We might learn something new.

Heck, I'd contribute a few dollars if money were an issue.

Joseph Cannon said...

"They're calling for an independent investigation. What's wrong with that?"

Absolutely nothing. You have never seen me denounce the idea of an independent investigation (or even a non-independent investigation) of this or any other issue.

But if your mind-set holds that anyone who testifies against your beliefs must be paid to lie -- well, there's bloody little point to the exercise, is there?


"Did JFK researchers make some money on books? Some did, of course (Mark Lane, maybe); others did not.

"However, it's not like there wasn't a far more vast financial interest on the flip side, meaning the MIC, military industrial complex, and their desire to have the Vietnam War, to which JFK strongly objected."

Agreed. Opponents of the Warren Commission critics routinely overestimated the number of books on the subject and the amount of money they brought their authors. That's why I said that the objection "He wrote that only for the money" can be leveled against anyone who writes any book for any reason.

On the other hand, I did note that by the time of the 1993 JFK conference in Dallas, a touch of a carnival atmosphere had arisen. In other words, I missed my chance to buy a Jim Garrison t-shirt. Still, damn few were able to make any $$ selling paraphernalia.

What bothered me much more than the salesmanship were the weird social aspects of the conspiracy subculture that started to come to the fore. The JFK guys remained more or less non-nutty -- at least, the best of them did -- but outside that category, all hell was breaking loose.

UFO lore started to mix it up with warmed-over John Birchisms. Anti-Clinton horsecrap mixed it up with nonsense about mind control and Satanism and secret societies. A certain segment of the populace LIVED in an alternative universe where all this stuff was accepted unquestioningly.

Geeky buffs socialized with other geeky buffs and stopped caring about the outside world. The militia input into that alternate universe was strong -- and that's when things started to get dangerous. When OKC happened, I was shocked, but not entirely surprised. When I learned that McVeigh had hung out with Bill Cooper, I just nodded my head and said "It figures."

If you disagreed with any of the claims being made at that time -- for example, if you said that Mark Phillips or Linda Thompson were liars -- you were denounced as a spy. (Which was stupid, of course: Any REAL spy would do his best to ingratiate himself.)

So now that I reflect on the question further, it isn't just "bitch ass money" that fosters the kind of mindless belief that Metzger has denounced. It's also social pressure. Once you enter that community, you start to lose all your other friends. And you don't want to lose the only friends you have left.

Just like joining a religion, eh wot?

Anonymous said...

Opponents of the Warren Commission critics routinely overestimated the number of books on the subject and the amount of money they brought their authors.

True enough, but note in addition 'the rest of the story' (TM), a highly relevant fact concerning the above is that we now know of a concerted CIA effort to counter the Warren Commission skeptics with exactly this talking point (among other talking points), sent out to their many assets in media to repeat.

Other talking points included claims of megalomaniacal publicity seeking for prominent authors in that movement (Lane, for one; Jim Garrison for another), the claims that conspiracy theories are comforting because they explain otherwise random events that have no greater meaning (as if the notion that a powerful clique inside government could eliminate a popular, duly elected president without negative consequences is comforting?).

Much of the anti-9/11 truth commentary smacks of these same tactics, even among prominent left publications like The Nation (David Corn and Cockburn), and raises the real question of similar sources for the commentary, and for comparable reasons.

If the ad hominem attacks on non-believers in the 9/11 truth movement are troublesome, isn't it equally true for the ad hominem attacks on its proponents?

That is, just as the monetary motive is a double-edged sword that cuts both sides (although I'd argue, orders of magnitude more so for the establishment's position), so too would that apply to the charges of intolerance and ad hominem attacks.

And, in fact, we know from COINTELPRO history exactly how disinformation agents and agents provocateur poisoning the well have been mustered into the fray by the establishment.

sofla

Joseph Cannon said...

"True enough, but note in addition 'the rest of the story' (TM), a highly relevant fact concerning the above is that we now know of a concerted CIA effort to counter the Warren Commission skeptics with exactly this talking point (among other talking points), sent out to their many assets in media to repeat."

Now hold on thar, pardner. I know the CIA memo to which you refer, but I also know that it has been wildly overblown.

There was a lot of "sick think: within the JFK community, which was one reason why I had to bow out. "Thou'rt spook" became an inescapable refrain among those people.

I know that in my last comment I referred to the JFK buffs as relatively sane, and so they are, compared to the other breeds of conspiratologists. But the key word is "relatively."

I spent years following the ins and outs of their accusations and counter accusations. Lemme tell ya: It was bloody revolting.

For example, Peter Dale Scott thought, and probably still thinks, that Garrison was an agent of the conspiracy. John Judge and Dave Emory think the same of Mark Lane. And I've met people who say the exact same nonsensical thing of Peter Dale Scott and John Judge and Dave Emory.

There are many, many more examples. Groden was called a spook -- where did he REALLY get all those photos, eh? Of course, Lifton was a spook to anyone who doubted his body-alteration theory. As for Walt Brown and Jim DiEugenio -- hey, you didn't really buy that "high school teacher" cover story, did you? And then there's Summers -- Tony Summers -- of Her Majesty's Secret Service.

I could go on. Everyone stood accused. EVERYONE.

It was all nonsense.

And the JFK buffs were the SMART guys. Now, class, let us hop aboard our Time Transport and take a look at the Roswell/MJ12 "researchers" circa 1991. On your right, you will note Mr. Cooper and Mr. Lear. They seem to be having a dispute...

AIEE! No. I CAN'T look. It's too grim. My god, that amount of paranoia simply isn't humanly possible!

Don't you see? If we follow your logic, sofla, then anyone who casts the proverbial bucket of cold water on ANY conspiracy theory stands damned as a paid-off agent of the conspiracy.

And that's precisely what is happening right now.

I can't write for BradBlog, even though he asked for my help during his last vacation, without it leading to accusations that I'm a CIA agent "infiltrating" his site. Why? Because I don't believe in trannyism.

John Judge doesn't believe in the CD theory, and thus all of his work on 911 gets "agent-baited." PDS always couches his statements carefully -- the man used to be a diplomat, of course -- but it's pretty obvious that HE doesn't accept the CD nonsense. Once the trannies catch on to that fact, how many minutes will pass before they accuse Professor Scott of being an infamous spook? (I'm sure a few of them already have.)

Don't blame some malefic outside agency for this paranoia. It's simply human nature for people to create insular tribes, and to try to bludgeon others into accepting their views when they cannot persuade through an appeal to fact and reason.

Remember Salem? "Goody Proctor is a Witch"? The kind of spook-baiting to which you give sanction is every bit as scurrilous and pernicious as the mass hysteria dramatized in "The Crucible." If youhead in that direction, very soon you'll find yourself in the corner with Xymphora, accusing Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein of being secret agents of the Great Zionist Conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

OH MY GOD They Killed KennyTruth! You Bastards!!