Can we persuade conspiracy buffs to drop their 9/11 speculations and join forces with the legions of the left? It would certainly be advantageous to have them by our side as we struggle to defeat our common foes on the right.
The standard theories and beliefs of 9/11 conspiracy buffs are well known and need not be repeated here. What needs telling, though, is the nature of the source of their adamant convictions. Perhaps a tour of the shaky substructure of their belief system can return them to their senses.
Journalist and author George Monbiot lamented last week about the 9/11 conspiracy phenomenon: "There is no reasoning with this madness," he wrote. In comments about the conspiracy film, Loose Change, Monbiot observed that the film's viewers are susceptible to its assertions "because it proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable, small. . . . This neat story draws campaigners away from real issues-global warming, the Iraq war, nuclear weapons, privatization, inequality-while permanently wrecking their credibility."
It's true that reasoning collapses at the portals of madness. But the conspiracy theorists are not mad in any clinical sense. Their reasoning is subverted by emotional issues, and that reasoning can shift and become rational when their minds are opened to new insight.
These conspiracy theorists are usually very bright, but they have an emotional weak spot. They reacted to the events of 9/11 with a sense of helplessness and powerlessness, which generated anxiety and fear in them. Their emotional priority was to scramble for safety, which they found in the world of fantasy. In self-deception, they developed a conspiracy fiction that they soon transformed into non-fiction and proclaimed to be absolute certainty. Religious fundamentalists, too, use rigid beliefs to develop certainty about the nature of the world. In both cases, the certainty doesn't have to be rational; all that matters is that the belief has a stabilizing, calming, or grounding effect, like that of nicotine or alcohol.
The calming effect is accompanied by the illusion of power. Borrowing from the proposition that knowledge is power, conspiracists proclaim: "I know what actually happened! I know the truth!" This produces an impression of power that, coupled with the intensity of their 9/11 obsession, feels substantial to them. The power, however, is puny indeed, for the cognitive trickery in which they engage bestows enormous power on the "evil" conglomerate of elitists who they claim orchestrated 9/11. In locating these evil forces in their own backyard, they feel even more at the mercy of them, to which their fear of the imminent imposition of martial law in the USA bears witness. Unhealthy though it is, they gravitate to feeling powerless.
Monbiot, who has published two recent stories on the conspiracists, is being angrily attacked in hundreds of posts for his opposition to their beliefs. The anger in one particular article at infowars.net is symptomatic of underlying passivity. The writer, Steve Watson, reacts righteously and defensively. His lack of power is evident in his act of writing an angry, personal attack on Monbiot. Watson repeatedly refers in his article to the "ineffectual left," an unfair generalization that can only be a projection of his own ineffectual passivity.
The more we feel helpless, the more we make spurious claims to have power or to represent it. For instance, when children chase pigeons in the park they are after the thrill of exercising power. The Harry Potter books and movies appeal to the desire in children to have the powers of a wizard. But real power frightens us when we're not mature enough to accept reality. As Monbiot says, "The 9/11 conspiracy theories are a displacement activity. A displacement activity is something you do because you feel incapable of doing what you ought to do."
Conspiracy theorists relate to the world as if viewing a movie. They can critique what they see as vile and evil, but they can't imagine engaging with it. They prefer to blame others for being evil or for letting evil things happen. Blaming is a framing technique that gives them many degrees of separation from the evil they claim to see. Blaming absolves them of any feeling that they need to interact in the process of reform. They think they're resisting evil, but they're bogged down in their imagination, tangled up with images instead of engaging the enemy.
Conspiracists are often desperate to convince us of the "truth" of their perceptions, which is another trait they share with religious fundamentalists. The more we use a belief system for inner balance or consolidation, the more secure we feel when others are enticed to join our belief system. The more emotionally attached we are to a belief system, the greater the danger that we could develop a form of madness (phobia, paranoia, or persecution complex) when that belief system is challenged by others.
These are not the End Times, but indeed they are the grim times. Allies are needed, and so I plead with conspiracy buffs to join our cause. You will be most welcome! The "ineffectual left" is going to triumph, and we would be happy to share the glory with you.
Peter Michaelson is an author and psychotherapist with a private practice in Ann Arbor, MI. He offers telephone sessions and specializes in marriage and partnership conflict resolution. His blog, books, and PDF files (of his books)are available at www.QuestForSelf.com.
Former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force, under President Reagan, and combat fighter pilot Col. Robert Bowman (Caltech Phd in aeronautics and nuclear engineering).
click here
Former CIA Intelligence Advisor to Reagan and George HW Bush and founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Ray McGovern
click here
Kevin Ryan, former department head at UL (Underwriter Laboratories) the company which certified the steel which went into the WTCs upon their construction, and inspected it after the WTC collapses in 2001.
click here
Former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Research Fellow at Stanford's Independent Institute, and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911#roberts
Canadian National Defense Minister, the Honourable Paul Hellyer
click here
Minister for the Environment, and Member of Parliament (United Kingdom) Michael Meacher
click here
National Minister of Defense (Germany). Also, served as Minister of Technology Andreas Von Bulow
click here
Former Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces, and chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union 's ministry of Defense, General Leonid Ivashov here
Former MI6 British Counter Intelligence Officer, David Shayler
click here
Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, James Fetzer
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=122
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, and co-chair of Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Steven Jones
click here
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont Graduate University, and author or editor of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" David Ray Griffin
click here
---
AND A MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and MOST OF THE WORLD.
A CNN viewers poll, which is not scientific, held Wednesday, November 10th, 2005, asked, "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" 89% replied "Yes," they did believe there was a cover-up by the U.S. Government (9,441 votes), while only 12% felt there was no cover-up.
In a national Zogby poll, of May 2006, found that 45%, of the American public felt a new 9/11 investigation should be launched because "so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success."
An earlier Zogby poll of New York City residents, from August of 2004, found that Half (49.3%) of New Yorkers felt that U.S. government officials "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act." While 66% of New Yorkers called for a new probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General.
----
For a video showing PROOF of Controlled Demolition see this page:
2 minute video - but takes a few minutes to load the page.
I kept it high quality so people could see the evidence in the video.
Click on the video again if it stops. It works best on a mac.
The "Conspiracy theorists" are psychologically "weak" and fearful are they? You couldn't be more mistaken.
It's actually the people who accept the "Official story" who are weak and fearful. No one wants to believe, or has any demonstrable psychological motivation to believe their own government was behind the attacks; to believe this is NOT a comforting belief, but exactly the opposite. The people who've come to believe the government was responsible –such as myself- often went through months or even years of denial to give the government the benefit of the doubt expressly because concluding one's own government was willing to kill you for political purposes, is an extremely UNCOMFORTABLE belief to hold.
You are very uninformed. I have a couple of articles for you to read, should you care at some point to re-evaluate your certainties.
9/11: If I knew nothing else about it, I'd know this.
In defense of the conspiratorial world view
click here
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 9:21:48 PM
Excuse me, but when I read your article I expected to see reasoned rebuttals, showing how wrong the conspiracy buffs are. Instead, you offered nothing concrete, and a lot of impassioned please to ignore these 'crazy people'. Where is your proof that would make us understand the truth?
It explains cogently, with plenty of references to videos that give reasoned, detailed accounts of what happened, and how. Interviews with people who were there discount the 'official' story convincingly.
The nay-sayers always ask how such a wide-ranging conspiracy could stay secret for so long when there are so many people involved. Read my article for an explanation. Why has the Kennedy assasination stayed so controversial for so long, when there were obviously plenty of people involved in that? The Bay of Pigs? Even the Riechstag fire. All these are or were well-kept secrets. Yet many people were involved. Use a little common sense and you will see for yourself that keeping secrets of this magnitude is easy; especially when fear is involved.
Next time you write a fluff piece, why not send it to Cosmo, or somewhere else more suitable?
by
MarcHolt (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments)
on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 9:50:27 PM
Everyone I ever knew who could write words as well as this "Appeal from the Left," (as if), worked for the CIA.
Sure, OpEd News is a premier, equal-access opinion site, but the thought-police proponents identified by their thought-disparagement of public oversight and responsible debate, the rightist-elitists are going to have to bring more rectitude in their beatitudes than vaguely claiming if 9/11 calls it a day, "the Left" will switch us back for free.
Look, Peter, I don't even know and you don't say WHAT conspiracy theory? Nobody is saying whodunnit, BECAUSE. WE. DON'T. KNOW.
It sure as hell WAS NOT nineteen fanatic hijackers.
WE. DON'T. KNOW. whodunnit.
THAT'S. WHY. WE. CALL. FOR. AN. INVESTIGATION. Reeeaaalll sslllooooowwwwww, AN. IN VES TI GA TION.
Nobody's calling for A. CON SPIR A CY. NO BODY.
The physics equations prove extra explosive energy was necessary -- Action EQUAL and OPPOSITE Reaction -- for the mass of the building, minus the energy of a dinky airplane and unimpressive fire. Physics proved a hundred years ago, physics proves a hundred years from now, there was SOMEthing in the building and it went -]boom[-
Let's IN VES TI GATE.
I am not calling anyone an ad hominem imbecilic fop, but Mr. Michaelson, if I may call you that, you, sir, or madam, as the case may be, do not know high school physics. Nor, I low to suggest, brain physiques.
by
meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 496 comments)
on Thursday, February 22, 2007 at 10:06:55 PM
This Comment is Flagged: dumping a forwarded email into a comment, with much irrelevant content is spamming Please respect the members of the community and edit, if you want to share.
S P E E D - B U M P S
BBC Hit Piece a Tissue of Lies, Bias and Emotional Manipulation - prisonplanet.com
Outraged truth community demands answers from Guy Smith, immediate retractions and apologies urged, savage agenda driven yellow journalism an insult to the truth
The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath.
Separated into two categories below are a number of questions intended to highlight Guy Smith's production for what it was - a deliberate hit piece on the 9/11 truth movement structured around fallacy, lying by omission and overwhelming bias. We invite Mr. Smith to respond to these questions and the hundreds of others that are already being asked by furious and informed community of people who were made sick to their stomachs by Smith's yellow journalism hatchet job.
We get the standard psychobabble from persons who have no sense of responsibility to actually investigate the issue. This is not new.
I've studied 9/11 for nearly 5 years (and will debate any knowledgeable challenger). These idiotic ideas about the very real cover-up of mass murder do not stand up to the facts.
Go away Michaelson...I hear RedState always welcomes idiots!
What patronizing crap from someone with such harsh emotional and intellectual blinders on!! Don't give this guy the pleasure of wasting our time. I have already wasted too much effort...later! Good responses though, to this point!!
by
Styve (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 37 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 1:57:07 AM
"9/11" has been exposed as a lie; what's the truth?
I suppose Michaelson is one of the 16% of Americans who think the Bullshit Administration is telling the truth about 9/11 (down from 21% in 02):
click here
Does he, like most of the left, believe they conspired to mislead us into the Iraq War? If they would mislead us about WMD in order to attack Iraq for personal reasons, how can anyone honest claim to know they wouldn't conspire to create an pretext to rally public support and suppress dissent, as has been done by many leaders in many nations thruout history- the Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor (read Day of Deceit) and Operation Northwoods
The Church Committee exposed that the CIA had infiltrated most of the major media and was controlling the public's access to information; with the number of corps controlling the media down from 50 to 6, does it make any sense to think we're getting more truth these days?
Given all the lies the BS Administration, the DOD, DOJ, FBI, CIA have told about what they knew prior to 9/11, about the warnings received, about the preparations and procedures that were in place for just such attacks, about the investigations that were blocked before and after, about the connections between the Bushes, Bin Laden, the CIA, Al Qaeda, Wall Street, the ISI and the Saudis, doesn't it make sense to have a reall investigation that addresses the 9/11 families questions, and with the testimony of whistleblowers like these 25 the Commission ignored:
click here
This joke Michealson needs to get his own head shrunk if he thinks that Americans are not right to ask the normal questions and demand accountability from those who swear an oath to defend the Constitution and instead betray it.
Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official 9/11 Story
click here
115 ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission:
click here
by
Better World Order (4 articles, 417 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 881 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 3:02:46 AM
You've really got to be a bit more firmly tethered before you start picking on 9/11 Truth folks with such weak arguments.
I remind the casual viewer that 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorists" include everyone who believes the "official theory" as well as those who are unconvinced or outright disdainful of all or part of it.
So any argument against 9/11 Truth that uses that moniker as some kind of negative tar-brush, is kind of like saying "those crazy oxygen-breathers always find comfort in ideas they can get their brains around".
In other words, it says NOTHING.
Weak ammo to be using when firing upon this crowd, as the comment-leavers before me so ably demonstrated.
I refer the interested reader to some other articles I wrote on this very topic.
Excellent replies! There is no reason for anyone with access to the internet NOT to take the time to investigate something fully before they are critical of those who have. THAT is a true weakness.
by
J Martin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 5:55:21 AM
When I approved this article submission, I knew it would gather criticsm and had meant to add that this is a very patronizing, condescending attitude. Being trained as a counselor, myself, I like psychological approaches. Here' you're taking an interesting approach. I imagine that in countries where ideology is a part of the social structure, this approach might even be used to diagnose mental illness.
You could come up with a few DSM diagnostic criteria, decide which axis to assign it to and voila, you could hospitalize people for mental dysfunction.
Now, you may have written this with the idea that the folks who adhere to 9/11 truth are experiencing cognitive distortion, or dysfunctional framing that produces short term emotional gains, but you never know. The next person might take your concepts, add a flavor of delusionality to the label and the next thing we know, 9/11 truth seekers are being herded into camps for the mentally ill.
This is just my extrapolation of YOUR thought experiment.
The interesting thing here is that when you experiment with ideas that pretty much label people mentally, shall we say, less than optimal, you move from being harmlessly creative to actually labelling people in a way that can hurt.
You may be right. But about half the population in the US and far more in other nations believe that the 9/11 hearings were not adequate. You're diagnosing, or hypothesizing about a lot of people-- billions.
by
Rob Kall (808 articles, 3923 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 7:14:34 AM
I had hoped that this article would dwell upon the real reasons to work in ways other than those that raise conspiracy to high levels. It is simply no way to win support for a change in governance. Most people are as knee jerk as are those who responded here, but in opposite fashion, and they are legion.
There will be much time, after we have retaken our government, to launch investigations into such notions as these. We will find ourselves unable to actually retake this government if we insist upon pushing ideas as these, even should they be the absolute truth.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 10:28:17 AM
"We will find ourselves unable to actually retake this government if we insist upon pushing ideas as these, even should they be the absolute truth."
When did "we" ever have possession of the federal government of the United States? Retake? That's not a reality based kind of thing to say.
Are you going to push the neocon Bill Clinton on us to pretend "we" were in control of the government? That seems the standard Democrat line.
Seeing how 45% of Americans (at least) want 9/11 investigated (I wonder why), the conclusion of your comment is even more bizarre. "Ideas as these" is taken to mean finding out who attacked us on September 11th. Since the govenment has been proven to have lied about it, in countless ways, I think you may be on a losing side here.
Turning the focus around, what kind of jelly spined worthless toad would NOT want to find out what truly happened to America on 9-11?
The moment I prove the 9-11 Commission was a cover up (check), the debate is over. We need real INDEPENDENT investigations now. You ignorant pinheads who haven't studied the issue, yet feel qualified to comment on it, need to get the hell out of the way.
by
johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 166 comments)
on Saturday, February 24, 2007 at 10:20:12 PM
If you wish to debate a point with me I will certainly do so with you, but keep the temperaments to yourself or the discussion quickly disintegrates into vapid pointlessness....there is a marked difference between passionate beliefs and intolerance of the beliefs of others.
I would suggest that your view of our government and its responsiveness to the will of the people is limited and agendised. Do you condemn the administration of Jefferson as unresponsive, or that of Teddy Roosevelt or his cousin Franklin's either? Much of what Bill Clinton did was objectionable, much was less so, full employment and a balanced budget for example. I would say that portions at least of our government are always responsive to the will of the people, through the process of elections if in no other way. I would also note that belief in conspiracies and frustration that others, including governmental agencies, do not share your beliefs is no reason for blanket indictments and raving rages. Life is tough, politics is even tougher.
Do you really believe that statistical number you pull from somewhere or other is accurate...45% of the people still think Sadaam Hussein caused 9/11 more likely. If you have any proof whatsoever of that number please show it, or at least state it as opinion, yours. Look, John, many of us believe that conspiracies exist. I personally believe that the JFK assassination is an unsolved murder, I have serious questions regarding the events leading up to 9/11 and the possible coverup that followed. But I do not make it my raison d'etre for all political discourse or hope to change things by appearing to rant and rave about stuff we cannot hope to prove. I gotta work with what Ive got and try to convince folks on their own terms that change is necesary, it is just the reality of politics.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, February 25, 2007 at 10:26:28 AM
[I responded on buzzflash yestereday because it was apparent that some posting there may not have realized that Mr. Michaelson is not a psychologist but a 'therapist' of unknown background who is slandering millions with whom he apparently disagrees. Mr. Kall correctly points out (above) that Mr. Michaelson is guilty of trying to diagnose millions/billions who also doubt the official conspiracy theory.]
---------
A Psychotherapist?
A psychotherapist is something one calls oneself when they do not have the education, training, experience and credentials of a psychologist (i.e., a Ph.D., Psy.D. or Ed.D) from an institution of higher learning accredited by the American Psychological Association.
I hope that no one here confuses Mr. Michaelson credentials with those of a licensed psychologist. His arguments in the above essay are fallacious and not even up to the standard of 'pop' psychology (which standards themselves are pretty abysmal).
I find these sorts of 'hit pieces' to be rather inane and simply reflective of the increasing threat the status quo within the "consensus trance" (from Richard Heinberg) perceives from the 9/11 Truth movement. Nothing is quite as threatening to them because the false flag of 9/11 stands as clear evidence of the complicity of elements of our government (and of its corporatist handlers) in the death of thousands of Americans (both in the attack itself and of 1st Responders) as well as of thousands of American Soldiers and 100's of thousands of Iraqi Moms, Kids and Dads....and many others). All to secure peaking energy supplies and create a damnable global hegemony.
So Mr. Michaelson may be simply misinformed. He may be 'entranced'. But I actually doubt that in his case. It is much more likely that he and other shills like Monbiot, Cockburn, Garcia, et. al., have a specific, conscious purpose. Can you guess what it is?
So, please don't think of Mr. Michaelson as any kind of psychologist. Psychologists may have various views about 9/11 but I know where I stand.
Dr. Richard Welser
Forensic Neuropsychologist
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 789 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 7:42:24 AM
"It's true that reasoning collapses at the portals of madness. But the conspiracy theorists are not mad in any clinical sense. Their reasoning is subverted by emotional issues, and that reasoning can shift and become rational when their minds are opened to new insight."
Replace the words "conspiracy theorists" with "brainwashed populace".
Besides, any fool knows how two top-notched Psychiatrists can go at each others throats ...each claiming he is right while both are certainly wrong just as two top-notched Professors and truth-seekers can.
Never mind the details, never mind the whodunnitz......
1) it sure as hell was not 19 Arabs with box cutters
2) the event was
a] used to expedite war plans from many years prior and
b] a most welcome financial booster for weapons producers and their financial institutes and last but not least
c] a damned smart way of getting rid of the asbestos problem at the WTC complex WITHOUT spending money or time.
You may call me a dreamer...........but
by
Tony Forest (6 articles, 15 quicklinks, 154 diaries, 1354 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 3:06:08 PM
An Open Letter to George Monbiot on his 9-11 Flip Flopping
An Open Letter to George Monbiot on his 9-11 Flip Flopping
George Monbiot has proven to be another 9-11 leftwing gatekeeper, and has published a series of vitriolic hitpieces disguised as articles attacking the 9-11 Truth Movement for its temerity in challenging the US government Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT).
Ive written to Mr Monbiot, whose journalism ive usually admired for its intelligence, perception, wit etc, twice, and received no reply to my first, have written a second, based on new information. Here is that letter.
======
What made George Monbiot change his mind about 9-11?
To: mail@monbiot.com
To Mr Monbiot,
I read your latest articles on 9-11. The nasty shrill
tone is so uncharacteristic of you and your usually
excellent journalism, that i wrote a letter to you not
long ago, for which i received no reply.
But a more serious aspect of this story is that you
once held view on 9-11 very similar to those in the
9-11 Truth movement. Did you actually write the
following:
'"The more evidence US intelligence presents...the
less credible the story becomes.
"First there was the car. A man had informed the
police, we were told, that he'd had a furious argument
with some suspicious looking Moslems in the parking
lot at Boston airport. He led the investigators to the
car, in which they found a copy of the Koran and a
flight manual in Arabic (Flight manuals are 'always'
in English), showing that these were the
fundamentalists who had hijacked the planes.
"Now flying an aeroplane is not one of these things
you learn in the back of a car on the way to the
airport. Either you know how to do it or you don't.
"Leaving the Koran unattended, a Moslem friend tells
me, is considered sinful.
"And if you were about to perpetrate one of the
biggest terrorist outrages the world has ever seen,
would you draw attention to yourself by arguing over a
parking place?
"Then there is the passport. The security services
claim that a passport belonging to one of the
hijackers was extracted from the rubble of the World
Trade Centre. This definitive identification might
help them to track the rest of the network.
"We are being asked to believe that a paper document
from the cockpit of the first plane - the epicentre of
an inferno which vapourised steel - survived the
fireball and fell to the ground almost intact."When
presented with material like this, I can't help
suspecting that intelligence agents have assembled the
theory first, then sought the facts required to fit
it...
"I think WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CAUSE TO REGARD THE NEW
EVIDENCE AGAINST BIN LADEN WITH A MEASURE OF
SCEPTICISM." Collateral repair Society
SocietyGuardian.co.uk '
click here ==================
Apparently, you did...That means at one point you were part of what you now call a 'conspiracy cult'.
click here
So what made you change your
mind so drastically, as to lose all sense of
journalistic objectivity, in your poison-pen pieces on
9-11?
regards
Brian Souter
by
brian (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 120 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 6:17:42 PM
Your comments on the problematic psyche of conspiracy theorists reflect more than just ignorance and confusion on your part. That you so fear to offend the criminal element in the "powers that be" that you cannot even examine the good objective evidence at hand tells volumes about your own psychlogical difficulties. That you try and promote such afflictions to those fighting for elementary social justice makes you as dangerous as those criminals you sycophanticly defend. Despite your best demented efforts justice will ultimately prevail or our nation will cease to be. Were it possible for the conspiracy denieres and coincidence theorists to join a Dick Cheney Hunting club.
by
Dick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 7:53:03 PM
Mr. Michaelson, I haven't seen such a patronizing misuse of psychology since the 1950's. Don't you realize that you FIRST have to evaluate the arguments and evidence presented by someone and decide whether they are right or wrong on that basis BEFORE you start theorizing (actually, speculating in your case) about why they came to these false conclusions. To start speculating about the psychological motives that led them to arrive at their conclusions BEFORE you have PROVEN the conclusions false is beging the question and ad hominem argument. It is comparable to dismissing someone by saying "yor're just taking that positon because you want attention" or "you're just on an ego trip." (Critics of Ralph Nader, take note.)
Actually, I spoke a little too strongly when I said I hadn't seen such sniveling excuses for argumentation since the 1950"s. That was when it was most popular but remnants of it have hung on later. When I attended the first mass March On Washington against the Vietnam War in 1965, I remember someone standing apart from the crowd with a sign saying "Radicals Are Sexually Frustrated." When I came out as Gay in 1969, I remember patronizing psychologizers dismissing us with allegations about our emotional syndromes instead of answering our arguments. And now, liberals, frightened into believing that their only alternative is either supporting the Democrats as the less evil or throwing the election to the Republicans, are slandering Ralph Nader as being "on an ego trip." There are some of who, after considering the steady rightward drift in the political climate of the U.S. that the tactic of lesser evil support of the Democrats has led to, have rational reasons to conclude that lesser evil support of the Democrats is comparable to being on a run-a-way train headed towards the edge of a cliff and desperately trying to save ourselves by crowding in to the Democratic rear car instead of the Republican front car.
But of course, you have hit the nail on the head. If only we had listened to people like you in the 1950's, there would have been no left for you to urge us the rejoin, once we had been cured of the need to find people to blame and "scapegoats" after the atrocity of 9/11.
Other people have already pointed out the error of your psychologizing. But I thought I could add something from a different perspective. I doubt it'll do you any good, though!
Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com
by
rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments)
on Friday, February 23, 2007 at 9:04:47 PM
