Back from a long hiatus

Hi! I’ve been away for a long time

I’ve been busy with other things over the past year, such as a new job. Also, my views and priorities have changed somewhat. But, over the next few weeks, I will now take the time to post updates on my views, and to do some further research.

Briefly: I still believe that we need a more independent follow-up to the 9/11 Commission, which was compromised by conflicts of interest such as Philip Zelikow’s ties to the Bush administration. And it is clear to me that something is being covered up, for reasons I’ll spell out in future posts. But I don’t claim to know what has been covered up, and my opinions on what is most likely have changed over the past couple of years.

I’m no longer inclined to believe in WTC demolition theories, for reasons I’ll explain in another future post. Also I’m no longer inclined to believe that “9/11 was an inside job” in general.

I don’t rule out certain limited kinds of “inside job” hypotheses as possibilities, but I now think other possibilities are more likely, such as a possible coverup of involvement by officials of one or more “allied” foreign governments such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, to which the U.S. government has deliberately turned a blind eye for whatever reason – possibly just diplomatic reasons, although I suspect there may be more to it than that. Also I think we should take a good hard look at the past history of U.S. government support for Islamist terrorists, which continued after the well-known example of the Soviet-Afghan war. (See US Intelligence Links to Islamic Militancy and Al-Qaeda in the Balkans on the History Commons site.)

In any case, I think we need to demand accountability from our government regarding its handling of the 9/11 attacks.

During the period when I was intensely involved in the 9/11 Truth movement (summer 2007 to spring 2008), I always opposed what I now call grand conspiracy ideology, e.g. claims about overarching, world-micromanaging cabals such as “the Illuminati” and “the New World Order.” Grand conspiracy ideology, which is promoted by some though by no means all people in the 9/11 Truth movement, is historically rooted in religion-based bigotry of one kind or another. The original “Illuminati” scares were rooted in a fear of atheists. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were rooted in a hatred of Jews. The 1980’s version of the “Illuminati” scare vilified primarily Pagans, occultists, and Satanists, plus also Freemasons, as well as atheists and sometimes Jews, plus also feminists, gay rights activists, and environmentalists. The current version is an elaboration on the 1980’s version. And, although grand conspiracy ideology features an alleged evil “Elite,” it has harmed a lot of people who were not elite. The vast majority of the victims of anti-Jewish pogroms were anything but elite. Likewise, the vast majority of the falsely accused in the “Satanic Ritual Abuse” scare were ordinary folks.

I still oppose grand conspiracy ideology and regard it as very dangerous. I would like very much to hear from others who oppose it and who are interested in debunking it.

I also believe that the debunking of grand conspiracy ideology — and debunking of the more outlandish 9/11 inside-job theories too, for that matter — can be a lot more effective when combined with credible calls for government accountability regarding 9/11. Some debunkers, such as Chip Berlet, have said that they agree with the call for an independent investigation of 9/11, on the grounds that the government should be held accountable even if no one in the government was guilty of anything worse than incompetence. But I haven’t yet seen Chip Berlet spell out, in detail, the reasons why he thinks a new investigation is necessary, or the particular questions he thinks should be investigated. In my opinion, debunkers such as Berlet would be more effective — i.e., more likely to be taken seriously by people who believe in 9/11 inside-job theories — if, in addition to debunking whatever they wish to debunk, they would also devote some significant amount of time and space (at least one full page) to making the case for a new investigation, thereby establishing some common ground with those people whom they wish to influence. Doing so would also set a positive example, which is more likely to be effective than just raining on someone’s parade.

More generally, I would like to see more civil discussion of 9/11-related issues by people on all sides. People in the 9/11 Truth movement need to slow down on jumping to the conclusion that people who disagree with them are disinfo agents. On the other hand, people in the debunker camp need to cut out the amateur psychoanalysis. People on all sides need to realize that insults, name-calling, and other ad hominems just make one’s own side look dogmatic and unreasonable.

An example of what I mean by amateur psychoanalysis, on the part of some debunkers, is the claim that inside-job theory believers somehow find that belief “comforting.” Hello? Most people do NOT find it at all “conforting” to believe that one’s own government has murdered thousands of its own citizens! The only people who might find this “comforting” would be people who already believed in a grand conspiracy ideology before being introduced to 9/11 inside job theories. In my experience, people in general do tend to be “conforted” by having their own worldview confirmed, whatever their worldview might be. But, for most other people, the process of being convinced of 9/11 inside job theories is anything but comforting.

I’ve rambled a bit. Over the next few days, I plan to write some posts which will:

1) Make the case for an independent investigation of 9/11 without advocating inside job theories.

2) Explain why I’m no longer inclined to believe in WTC demolition theories

3) Do some debunking of grand conspiracy ideologies.

I hope I can find some people interested in joining me in #3. I consider grand conspiracy ideology to be extremely dangerous, being the type of “conspiracy theory” which has, historically, caused the most harm to the most people.