Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Noam Chomsky: 9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory

You really should understand the concept of mirroring that Fela Fan has spoken about. Cos a few on these boards engage in it almost obsessively, especially when a "conspiraloon" (how insidious that term) gets close to showing evidence that is irrefutable

What "evidence"? I've not seen one single shred of real evidence from those who claim that the twin towers were hit by a guided missile and the planes that we, and what those on the ground saw, were holograms. You're calling an awful lot of people "liars". It's nonsense.

It all goes round and round in circles; with one ridiculous claim being superseded by another ridiculous claim. Whatever next?

I prefer Baudrillard's The Gulf War Did Not Take Place, at least he puts together a half-decent argument and you can see why he says what he says - in spite its provocative title.
 
squeegee said:
From your website. An interview with the Daily Telegraph.
That was ten fucking years ago, you stupid, stupid, deceitful fucking moron. And I didn't even work for Snickers - I was working for a small design company doing a football website which Snickers sponsored.

You claimed that I just banned someone "for no other reason than they raised an uncomfortable truth that you couldn't deal with, namely that your position on 9/11 could be compromised by your employment by multi-national corporations"

Please list my current "multi-national corporation" employers and provide evidence why my position on 9/11 could be compromised by such employment.

If you can't back it up, you're out of here because I'm fed up to the back teeth with liars dredging up my personal life to try and score cheap points.
 
squeegee said:
I would say the same about those who believe there is no conspiracy and the world is just a random chaotic, but nevertheless cosy place



...or become a fundamentalist rationalist who believes in a certain universe where there are no leaders, no elites and everything just happens by itself. That Dawkins has alot to answer for.



Oh well, if it makes people upset then I'll just apologise and allow what I think to be a grave threat to humanity just to go unchecked. Just so I don't upset a few people's cosy world view, of course. Please :rolleyes:


What on earth are you on about? :confused: Are you on crack or what?
 
squeegee said:
You really should understand the concept of mirroring that Fela Fan has spoken about.

Christ, not you too. :rolleyes:

What you mean is projection btw, and its not fela fan's concept. Your posts (and fela fan's, and mine and everyone elses) are full of projections...its ironic really. We can see others projections but we have trouble seeing our own...

meh
 
squeegee said:
From your website. An interview with the Daily Telegraph.

"He has worked for Head New Media on sites for Snickers and Internet providers Direct Connection, employing the same graphic verve that makes Urban75 so entertaining. "I could only work for companies I think are cool, though," he states. "I couldn't under any amount of duress do a McDonalds or a Shell site. I'm an Internet designer but I'm also a campaigner - the two have to go hand in hand."

That would be snickers a subsidiary of mars corporation, would it. If there's another snickers, or if you worked for free, I'll be happy to retract and apologise.

And if it is, I love the way you think McDonalds is uncool, but a bar of high fat, chemical-saturated, processed sugar "chocolate" bar that leads to obesity in children, "cool".

I await your reply. ;)

So fucking what? What do you do for a living thats so fucking pure?
 
editor said:
That was ten fucking years ago, you stupid, stupid, deceitful fucking moron. And I didn't even work for Snickers - I was working for a small design company doing a football website which Snickers sponsored.

Oh it was 10 years ago. So that's alright then is it. The point is not that you are skulking around or plotting with corporate fucks. The point is that your kind of thinking, the rationalist mindset of which you are by no means in a minority here is part of a syatematic indoctrination that starts in school, goes on into university and then solidifies in the working world. In having to deal with a societal structure where everyone thinks in this way, it naturally becomes the common thought process for those who succeed. Indeed if someone does not display such thought processes you soon find yourself met with silence and suspicion. This is pervasive and very gradual, until you instinctively engage in "group think".

I have worked in several multi-national companies far worse than Mars I believe (Murdoch's little broadsheet for one). And believe me even though at first I was spouting my theories, in certain company, when the crowd said something like "do you know some people actually believe that the twin towers were destroyed by the USG...how mad" I just let it go, cos i knew to do anything different would inevitably lead to my causing disruption and eventually losing my job. But I always manage to lose the jobs in the end, cos I just can't button my lip.

I don't know if you've read "You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths" Edited by Russ Kick, but the introduction describes this form of unconscious control as well as I 've seen it written. I happened to flick through it last night at a book stall. It articulated exactly what I thought.

The point isn't when you worked for them or even if they are the only ones. The point is that you are not Swampy living on what the earth provides. You are a website designer working in London and so your views are compromised by this ( as are all of ours to one extent or another) and the more successful you are the more you have to deal with this pervasive mind set that only accepts complicity. They will allow you some room to breathe (the Telegraph seemed to relish terming you an anarchist) but you can never dictate the terms.

I'm not sure exactly what Asrael23 was getting at. But certainly I believe this Newtonian/Darwinian/Marxist paradigm that the left falls under makes it very hard, if not impossible, for anyone to be successful and retain their integrity.

I think you happen to do a better job than most at that. But in the really crunch subject, 9/11, you just cannot afford that rationalist mindset to slip even for a second, even if you wanted to, because, like Chomsky, your credibility would be damaged by those very forces of the dominant cultural hegemony and perhaps even some of the reputable companies you have worked for would run for cover.

But you have to admit that calling Snickers cool, maybe two years or so after Bill Hicks railed against America for eating the stuff, does look a bit...erm silly.

But then we've all done silly things when we were young, I suppose :)
 
Ok apologies, you didn't dirtectly call snickers cool. But you said you'd only work for cool companies, and even if snickers only sponsored a football website, that does mean it would have been money coming from them.

And for the record, (since I edited the above post and it might have been missed) I have worked as a journalist/sub-editor for News International and IPC Media among others. So I'm not blameless either. But I did lose my job at Murdoch's baby for sending a global peace email to all editorial staff at New Int (4,500 or so) on the day the UK/US invaded Iraq. They were not pleased, but I walked out chuffed before security could get their grubby paws on me. That was satisfying, but did ruin my chances of a big corporate media career :D

But it was worth it to see the look on those faces. Especially the socialist NUJ worker who just watched me go and shook my hand saying, nice working with you. Solidarity brother!

Priceless :D
 
Am I the only one to notice that if you hold two snickers bars up vertically, a little apart, they look just like the twin towers!!!
 
axon said:
Am I the only one to notice that if you hold two snickers bars up vertically, a little apart, they look just like the twin towers!!!
I had one over summer which collapsed, too. Of course, they'll tell you it was the heat, but the melting point of a Snickers is much too high for that to be possible.
 
Everyone knows a Twix cannot just melt, the core biscuit centre would have to be destroyed in a series of small controlled explosions.
 
niksativa said:
I think it is worth recalling the points made in this well balanced piece : "'Conspiracy Theories' and Clandestine Politics""
http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l29consp.htm

Nice link Nik :) particularly agree with this last bit:

"At the most basic level, all the efforts of individuals to privately plan and secretly initiate actions for their own perceived mutual benefit - insofar as these are intentionally withheld from outsiders and require the maintenance of secrecy for their success - are conspiracies.

Moreover, in contrast to the claims of conspiracy theorists, covert politics are anything but monolithic. At any given point in time, there are dozens if not thousands of competitive political and economic groups engaging in secret planning and activities, and most are doing so in an effort to gain some advantage over their rivals among the others...

Sometimes the patterns of these covert rivalries and struggles are relatively stable over time, whereas at other times they appear fluid and kaleidoscopic, as different groups secretly shift alliances and change tactics in accordance with their perceived interests. Even internally, within particular groups operating clandestinely, there are typically bitter disagreements between various factions over the specific courses of action to be adopted...

...There is probably no way to prevent this sort of unconscious reaction [of anti-conspiracy theorists] in the current intellectual climate, but the least that can be expected of serious scholars is that they carefully examine the available evidence before dismissing these matters out of hand."

This is a fair analysis IMO
 
You have a belief system that absolutely does not allow for a USG conspiracy surrounding 9/11.


I have a belief system that allows for the possibility of invisible crocodiles to demolish down the Twin Towers with giant invisible ray guns; however I also have something called '''common sense'' and ''a rational mind'' that enables me to look at the evidence and decide what is a heap of steaming paranoid conspiraloonery and what appears to be a rational truth based on evidence.
 
editor said:
He then refused to make sense of that but went on to claim that I "sickened" him for the mysterious services I supposedly provided to "wealthy businessmen."
:confused: :confused:

* Pops off to check trade ads in Boyz and QX for any pictures of dreadlocked welshmen ... *
 
As Chomsky said in 'Manufacturing Consent' Conspiracy theory is a term that's used to discourage institutional analysis. So I don't think he's against 'conspiracy theories' - maybe he's just picky about which ones he thinks deserve a second thought.
 
Badger Kitten said:
I have a belief system that allows for the possibility of invisible crocodiles to demolish down the Twin Towers with giant invisible ray guns; however I also have something called '''common sense'' and ''a rational mind'' that enables me to look at the evidence and decide what is a heap of steaming paranoid conspiraloonery and what appears to be a rational truth based on evidence.
Badger Kitten - you are familiar, of course, with Operation Northwoods - the plot to invade Cuba by means of false flag terror attacks - the most notable one being

Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

My hypothetic question for you is this one. Had Operation Northwoods been carried out, what would your 'rational' mind have said about it? Would you have rumbled it, and if so, how?
 
But it wasn't carried out was it, which makes the fact that people still bang on about something as if it is significant years later about as daft as me still banging on about a drunken conversation I had 15 years ago when I said to my mates, let's start a band.:rolleyes:

If it had happened I would be interested. As it didn't ever get past being a possible plan on paper, who cares? As to why conspiraloons carry on and on about it, how silly. IMO>
 
squeegee said:
Oh it was 10 years ago. So that's alright then is it.
I'm stil waiting for you back up your claims that I banned someone "for no other reason than they raised an uncomfortable truth that you couldn't deal with, namely that your position on 9/11 could be compromised by your employment by multi-national corporations."

Will do you so now please? Or apologise for posting up lies. Or be banned.
I don't care which it is, to be honest.
 
Jazzz said:
Badger Kitten - you are familiar, of course, with Operation Northwoods - the plot to invade Cuba by means of false flag terror attacks - the most notable one being
FFS.

Not it-never-happened Operation only-on-paper fucking Northwoods from over forty years ago again?

:rolleyes:
 
squeegee said:
Ok apologies, you didn't dirtectly call snickers cool. But you said you'd only work for cool companies, and even if snickers only sponsored a football website, that does mean it would have been money coming from them.
No, it doesn't you clueless fucking moron.

I was paid by the design company. I never met anyone from Snickers, and I didn't so much as a free Snickers bar off them. And that was all ten years ago, so please explain how my position on 9/11 "could be compromised by your employment by multi-national corporations."
 
Badger Kitten said:
But it wasn't carried out was it, which makes the fact that people still bang on about something as if it is significant years later about as daft as me still banging on about a drunken conversation I had 15 years ago when I said to my mates, let's start a band.:rolleyes:

If it had happened I would be interested. As it didn't ever get past being a possible plan on paper, who cares? As to why conspiraloons carry on and on about it, how silly. IMO>
But other ones just like it may very well have happened. The point being, it was only declassified because it didn't happen. We don't know about the ones that did - if you want to think there is nothing beneath the tip of the iceberg, because that's all you can see, that's up to you. But regardless, it's a very pertinent hypothetical in any case.

Suppose you went to train at a US military academy. You are aware that your study regime would consist of military strategy dating from the time of Hannibal? 40 years ago is fucking yesterday - cosy yourself with crappy rationalisations like the above if you wish, just don't kid yourself that you are being clever.
 
I'm sorry but since when did something not happening and being rejected as an unfeasible idea mean that lots of things like it did happen, even though it is still an unfeasible idea?

Oh, I forgot. It's a conspiracy.
 
editor said:
FFS.

Not it-never-happened Operation only-on-paper fucking Northwoods from over forty years ago again?

:rolleyes:
Don't you worry about it, I have no hope for any meaningful discourse with you on the topic, I was asking BK.
 
Badger Kitten said:
I'm sorry but since when did something not happening and being rejected as an unfeasible idea mean that lots of things like it did happen, even though it is still an unfeasible idea?

Oh, I forgot. It's a conspiracy.
It wasn't rejected an as 'unfeasible' idea. It was considered perfectly feasible - that's the point. How would you have known about it?
 
So that's the Operation Northwood which involved plans to do some simulated attacks to blame Cuba for because they clearly didn't have the bottle to kill real, breathing US sailors (let alone civilians) as part of their scam ... :confused:

Couldn't that be used as evidence that the attacks on 11 September wouldn't have been carried out by the USG because even at the depths of the problems with Cuba (which, I would suggest, were at least as much of a threat to the US as Al-Quaeda / Iraq or whatever) they didn't even have the bottle to kill a (relative) few service personnel ... :confused: :confused:
 
So something that didn't happen is now being used to speculate that other things might have happened that we don't know about, yes? In other countries and other times over the last 40 years?

Well it is a possibility but not one that keeps me up at night. The moon landings may have been faked, there is a possibility, Elvis might still be alive, it is a possibility, but I don't break aa sweat about those possibilies much either.

If you think that bringing up something that never happened, and was posited and then rejected as a possible course of action by different people in a different time and a different place and a different set of circumstances to now is going to make me think that 7/7 and 9/11 were psy-ops/false flag operations, you have, I'm afraid, failed lamentably. Again.

The point being that I find evidence -based rationality more helpful than conjecture, and speculative hypothesing about a non-event more fruitful than speculative fruitbattery
 
Back
Top Bottom