Het oliarchische keizerrijk
In de VS was afgelopen weekend op C-Span het in juni gehouden congres American Scholars Symposium: 9/11 and The Neo-Con Agenda te zien. De herhaling is vandaag om 22.00 uur Nederlandse tijd.
American Scholars Symposium. Dat klinkt erg deftig en reuze formeel, maar het is het gebruikelijke clubje 9/11 karikaturen dat hoofdzakelijk voor eigen parochie preekt: gewezen militair Robert M. Bowman, de Mormoonse hoogleraar Steve E. Jones, Hollywood acteur (en fremkorper in dit geheel) Charlie Sheen, donderpredikers Alex Jones en Jim Fetzer, en Webster Tarpley, criticus van het "Anglo-Amerikaanse oliarchische keizerrijk", als we Wikipedia ten minste mogen geloven.
"Preaching to the choir is a method best left in the past.." zo lezen we op Alex Jones' Prison Planet, maar dat is precies wat het clubje doet: Ze interviewen elkaar op radioshows, slaan elkaar op de schouders op zelfgeorganiseerde symposia, en verwijzen naar elkaar op websites, wat het inteelt- en vacuumeffect alleen nog maar verder versterkt. Them against us.
Inderdaad: Als je maar lang genoeg tegen elkaar blijft roepen dat de regering Bush 3000 doden op zijn geweten heeft ga je er vanzelf in geloven. Dylan Avery, de maker van de documentaire Loose Change, nam daarom maar gelijk de vergelijking met Nazi Duitsland in de mond. Waarna nog iemand hard schreeuwde dat hij een paar duizend dollar uit wil uitgeven om het volledige 9/11-archief van het NIST (een van de instanties die onderzoek deden naar 9/11) in handen te krijgen met een beroep op de Amerikaanse Wet Openbaarheid van Bestuur. En dan was er zelf nog een heuse 9/11 sing-along. Over de smakeloosheid daarvan mag je zelf oordelen.
Labels: 9/11
posted by Billythekid @ 16:48
9 comments
9 Comments:
Billy, is er een gebeurtenis denkbaar op welk moment zelfs jij gaat twijfelen aan het officiële verhaal?
Over het algemeen heeft iedereen een omslagpunt als het gaat om de interpretatie van een bepaalde werkelijkheid.
Seven Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentatorbecome argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
"Billy, is er een gebeurtenis denkbaar op welk moment zelfs jij gaat twijfelen aan het officiële verhaal?"
Met Alex Jones, Bob Bowman, Steve Jones, Webster Tarpley en James H. Fetzer gaat dat voorlopig niet lukken, vrees ik.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
Loose Change and the 9/11 Scholars are only scratching half of the truth.
The rest is compiled here:
http://911tvfakery.blogspot.com
Everyone who agrees, should support this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/911tvfak/petition.html
Hoe denken complotdenkers?
10 If GovernmentStory=False
Then Evidence==False
20 If Evidence=False
Then GovernmentStory==False
30 Goto 10
In het zaaltje daar in LA zaten niet meer dan honderd mensen en er waren zelfs nog stoelen vrij. Dat is dus de harde kern van de 911 beweging in Amerika.
Een misselijkmakend zootje daar in de zaal met hun sing-a-long. Of je nu wel gelooft of niet, er stierven daar onschuldige mensen.
Waarom worden dan de putoptiekopers zorgvuldig buiten schot gehouden? Heb jij hun namen en verhaal in de krant zien staan?
Allemaal goed weggestopt, want de waarheid zou iemand wel eens niet kunnen bevallen.
Een reactie posten
<< Home