Sunday, August 16, 2009

Phillip Adams and 9/11 denial

Psychological defences protect us from painful truths.
Now, as we all know, the destruction of the World Trade Center had absolutely nothing to do with bin Laden, it was carried out by President Bush, working closely with the FBI and the CIA, who we know have a long history of doing this, look at the Kennedy assassination. Now I have been inundated with emails and DVDs for months and months and months on these batch of conspiracy theories, which are often overlapping and contradictory...
Phillip Adams, Late Night Live
Phillip Adams' attempt to discredit and discourage discussion about 9/11 typifies mainstream commentary on the matter. So we have, for example, from Psychology Today, Paranoia, 9/11, and the roots of conspiracy theories, by Joshua D. Foster and Ilan Shrira, which portrays those who question the official story of 9/11 as suffering some kind of psychological disorder characterised by "intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy".

Or this, from ScienceNews, The inner worlds of conspiracy believers, by Bruce Bower
Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious, a new study suggests. [The study] offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.

[The study] identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, [including] taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.
And this, from the ABC Unleashed, Conspiracy theory lunacy by Hugh Tobin,
The theories are motivated from a variety of factors sometimes relating to anti-Americanism and most commonly from a psychology of mistrust and paranoia.

Those involved establish their conclusions first, and gather their evidence later. Contradictory evidence is either ignored or discredited.

The conspiracy theorists are oppositional by nature. They will believe 11 different versions of what occurred, even if they are all contradictory, but only as long as they are not related to the official version of events.
And again, from the ABC Unleashed, The philosophy of conspiracy by David Coady,
People in the "9/11 truth movement" are often dismissed as "conspiracy theorists"... The problem with the 9/11 truthers is that they are committed to an irrational and false theory ...
And back to Phillip Adams, writing for the Australian, Benefits in the doubt ...
I'm found wanting because I accept as fact that bin Laden and the lads were responsible for 9/11 when anyone with half a brain knows that the CIA, FBI and Bush did it. With some help from Mossad. My central argument is that Bush proved that he and his administration were dunderheads by stuffing up everything from Afghanistan to Iraq to New Orleans - that they couldn't raffle a duck in a country pub, let alone bring off the greatest act of treason in history. But to oppose 9/11 conspiracy theorists is to prove yourself part of the conspiracy.
Such dunderheads that they couldn't steal not one but two elections, couldn't start not one, but two wars, couldn't kill not one but two million people, couldn't fleece the American taxpayer of not one but two trillion dollars. Yeah right, whatever you say, Phillip, please, do continue...
As with the 9/11 conspiracy nutters and the historical revisionists of the Holocaust ... these sceptics fall into the category of 'deniers'.
There is a common thread running through all these examples... attack the messenger, smear by association, portray those who question the official dogma as being crazy, mentally deranged, unable to think properly... these 9/11 conspiracy theorists, they're kooks, they refuse to look at the evidence, they deny the facts, their minds are made up and closed... blah blah blah... there is this attempt to belittle or denigrate the individual, the questioner, without addressing the issue, the question.
It is simply "shut up", "go away", "we don't want to hear you", "we're not interested in your questions"... which is really rather like denial, in a way... refusing to listen, refusing to think, refusing to allow others to question... it's about suppressing enquiry, it's about controlling the discourse, it's about imposing the official dogma....

This is what mainstream media is really all about.

Crap agenda propaganda!

But let's dig a little deeper, let's look at some of the psychological factors underlying the pundits' aversion to addressing the issue of 9/11 with an open mind, objectively and impartially. We can gain some insight by examining the arguments they employ to denigrate those who question the official dogma.

For example, the pundits accuse those who question the official dogma of believing and promoting "conspiracy theories", when in fact it is the pundits who believe in and promote a 9/11 conspiracy theory, the one about 19 Arab hijackers.

Similarly, the pundits accuse those who question the official dogma of refusing to consider the evidence, but those who question the official dogma do so on the basis of the evidence. They have studied the evidence and are not satisfied with the official explanation. It is the pundits who refuse to look at the evidence.

And again, the pundits accuse those who question the official dogma of having closed minds, but clearly, those who question the official dogma are open to alternative explanations. Rather it is the pundits who have closed their minds to new evidence, who refuse to reconsider their position in light of new information.

What we see at work here is a psychological defense mechanism whereby people attribute their own undesirable traits to others. This is known as projection.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica ...
Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world.
Another psychological defense mechanism at work here is denial. The pundits deny that there is any problem with the official account, they deny the possibility of a cover up. They deny that the issue has any relevance or significance. Denial, as a defense mechanism, occurs when "a person who is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept, rejects it and insists that it is not true, despite what may be overwhelming evidence." Wikipedia

The pundits and proponents of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory accuse those who question 9/11 dogma of being in denial, but clearly, it's the pundits themselves who are in denial, and that's understandable... the study of 9/11 is emotionally and intellectually challenging, evaluating the evidence is difficult and time consuming. Some people might find the evidence leads to conclusions that are too disturbing to consider... for others, it's just all too complex for their simplistic world view to accomodate.

The attitude that seems to prevail at the ABC, as at other corporate media networks, towards citizens who have concerns, questions or doubts about the official explanation for 9/11, is an attitude of scorn, ridicule and derision. The questions raised by those who have doubts about the official explanation are rarely, if ever, seriously addressed by the main stream media. Instead, the questions are dismissed as "irrelevant", "illogical" or "already explained" and the concerned citizens are labeled "kooks", "loons", "deniers" and "conspiracy nutters".

What do they hope to achieve by denigrating and insulting citizens who seek only to learn the truth about 9/11, why refuse to let them have a voice and air their doubts, why dismiss their concerns without at least examining them first? Is this any way to treat the citizenry, do they think the public should just shut up and butt out? Are we supposed to just accept whatever story the authorities hand down, without question, as in a totalitarian state?

I have not yet heard the issue of 9/11 aired objectively, impartially or rationally on any mainstream media outlet. The subject is only ever raised in the context of "those crazed conspiracy kooks are at it again, they just won't shut up, perhaps we should label them terrorists and rendition them to Yemen for a bit of torture". I think this is an indication of just how compromised and incompetent the mainstream media is at investigating, understanding and informing the public about matters of paramount importance to the social and political health of our culture and system of governance.

Indeed, the appalling failure of mainstream media to address such crucial matters as the crime of 9/11 and the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention any number of scandals and atrocities that likewise never make the news, has, in my opinion, completely destroyed the credibility of mainstream media. These days, I simply cannot endure the clueless, hackneyed, monologue of conventional trivia spouted by mainstream journalists and commentators. It seems they're preaching to a very small and ever shrinking congregation.

Those who impugn the people who attempt to research, to investigate, to expose and to describe the dynamics of 9/11, function as gatekeepers for the ruling order, they are an obstacle in the path. They do nothing to illuminate what has to be done. They do everything to protect the perpetrators of this crime. We have to call it by its name. We have to tell it like it is and we have to organize and mobilize around this reality... Ralph Shoenmann

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous10:23 PM

    I'm shocked that my favourite Australian, Phillip Adams would be so heart breakingly ignorant enough to become a media stooge like he has on the false-flag attack of the World Trade Centre. In my heart of hearts I like to believe that the CIA, knowing of his media strength have held a gun at his head and warned him of the consequences of speaking the truth.
    Pat Appleton