Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

rouesolaire · rouesolaire@yahoo.fr | Group Member  - Edit Membership Start a Group | My Groups
evola_as_he_is · EVOLA AS HE IS

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 121
  • Category: Spirituality
  • Founded: Nov 19, 2004
  • Language: English

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Hear how Yahoo! Groups has changed the lives of others. Take me there.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Conspiracy   Topic List   < Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Reply < Prev Message  |  Next Message > 
In 'The New Pearl Harbor : Disturbing Questions about the Bush
Administration and 9/11', David Ray Griffin put forward most
interesting considerations on the notion of 'conspiracy theory',
which, let us emphasise this, must not be equated purely and simply
with that of 'occult war', which, in fact, is far broader.

"(...) it seems widely assumed that any such case (the revisionist
view on 9/11) can be rejected as a priori by pointing out that it is a
"conspiracy theory". Indeed, it almost seems to be a requirement or
admission into public discourse to announce that one rejects
conspiracy theories. What is the logic behind this thinking ? It
cannot be that we literally reject the very idea that conspiracy
occur. We all accept conspiracy theories of all sorts. We accept a
conspiracy theory whenever we believe that two or more people have
conspired in secret to achieve some goal, such as to rob a bank,
defraud customers, or fix prices, we would be more honest, therefore,
if we followed the precedent of Michael Moore, who has said : "Now,
I'm not into conspiracy theories, except the ones that are true."

To refine this point slightly, we can say that we accept all those
conspiracy theories that we believe to be true, while we reject all
those that we believe to be false. We cannot, therefore, divide people
into those who accept conspiracy theories and those who reject them.
The division between people on this issue involves simply the question
of wich conspiracy theories they accept and which ones they reject.

To apply this analysis to the attacks of 9/11: It is false to suggest
that those who allege that the attacks occurred because of official
complicity are "conspiracy theorists" while those who accept the
official account are not. People differ on this issue merely in terms
of which conspiracy theory they hold to be true, or at least most
probable. According to the official account, the attacks of 9/11
occurred because of a conspiracy among Muslims, with Osama bin Laden
being the chief conspirator. Revisionists reject that theory, at least
as a sufficient account of what happened, maintaining that the attacks
cannot be satisfactorily explained without postulating conspiracy by
officials of the US government, at least in allowing the attacks to
succeed. The choice, accordingly, is simply between (some version of)
the received conspiracy theory and (some version of) the revisionist
conspiracy theory. Which of these competing theories we accept
depends, or at least should depend, on which one we believe to be
better supported by the relevant facts. Those who hold the revisionist
theory have become convinced that there is considerable evidence that
not only suggests the falsity of the received conspiracy theory, which
we are calling "the official account," but also points to the truth of
the revisionist theory."

In one of the footnotes to the introduction, he adds : "To refine the
point a little more: There are some conspiracy theories that, although
we may not be convinced of their truth, we find at least plausible, so
we are willing to entertain the possibility that they might be true.
We are open, accordingly, to reading and hearing evidence intended to
support them. There are other conspiracy theories, by contrast, that
we find completely implausible, so we tend to suspect the intelligence
or sanity of people who believe them or who even entertain the
possibility of their truth. Whatever facts they offer as evidence we
reject out of hand, holding that, even if we cannot explain these
facts, the true explanation cannot be the one they are offering. But
the question of what we find completely implausible — 'beyond the
pale' — is seldom determined simply by a dispassionate consideration
of empirical evidence. Plausibility is largely a matter of one's
general worldview. We are also influenced to some degree by
wishful-and-fearful thinking, in which we accept some ideas partly
because we hope thay are true and reject other ideas because we would
find the thought that they are true too frightening. At least
sometimes, however, we are able, in spite of our prejudgments, to
revise our prior ideas in light of new evidence. Most revisionists
about 9/11, in presenting their evidence, seem to be counting on this
possibility."

In the foreword to the book, Richard Falk makes a few methodologic
observations of a general nature, which, as such, apply, in
particular, to the various criticisms made against the very study of
the 'occult war' : "His [the author's] approach is based on the
cumulative impact of the many soft spots in what is officially claimed
to have happened, soft spots that relate to advance notice and several
indications of actions facilitating the prospects of attack, to the
peculiar gaps between the portrayal of the attack by the media and
government and independent evidence of what actually occurred, and to
the unwillingness of the government to cooperate with what meager
efforts at inquiry have been mounted. Any part of this story is enough
to vindicate Griffin's basic contention that this country and the
world deserve a comprehensive, credible, and immediate accounting of
the how and why of that fateful day." ("I emphasize this point, he
says in a footnote, because some polemicists, when confronted by a
book whose conclusion they do not like, seek to undermine this
conclusion by focusing on the few points that they believe can be most
easily discredited. That tactic, assuming that good evidence is really
presented against those points, is valid with regard to a deductive
argument. In relation to a cumulative argument, however, it is tactic
useful only to those concerned with something other than truth).

Massimo Introvigne, according to wikipedia, "is the founder and
managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR),
an international network of scholars who study new religious
movements. Introvigne is the author of tens of books and articles in
the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the
Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in
Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion." Note that "he is
also a consultant on intellectual property rights" and "he is a member
of the Catholic movement Alleanza Cattolica and one of the founding
members of the Italian think tank Nova Res Publica initiated in 1999
by Silvio Berlusconi, to which Forza Italia (...) is closely
connected." In 1997, Introvigne co-organised an event at the Westin
Hotel in Los Angeles where 1,500 attendees came dressed as vampires
for "creative writing contest, Gothic rock music and theatrical
performances". On a less wikipedian tone, see :
http://www.kelebekler.com/cesnur/storia/gb04.htm

Without him being aware of it, M. Introvigne's articles on the 9/11
prove R. Falk's and D.R. Griffin's right, in a spectacular manner.

Fasten your seat belts :

"As I have shown elsewhere one of the most serious manifestations of
the moral disease of the contemporary West lies in the position on the
terrorist attack of the 11th of september 2001 which, to undermine
radically the determination of those who would like to react to the
ultra-fundamentalist Muslim aggression, does not confine itself to
deny with pacifist or 'do-good' arguements the legitimacy of the
reaction, but even denies the fact [denies the fact that terrorist
attacks took place on the 11th of Septembre 2001 ?!]. The arguments
according to which the 9/11 attacks would not be the work of Al Qaida,
but of the American administration, of corrupt insiders, of American
security services or of Israel clash, not only with technical
objections that show their mythological character, but also with the
fact that those attacks have been claimed and exalted by tens, if not
hundreds, of documents that come from the ultra-fundamentalist Muslim
world, which are often published on sites that make reference to that
world and which can hardly be thought to have been sold (sic) to the
CIA or the Mossad. Therefore, the arguments of the 'negationists' are
not particularly interesting with respect to the reconstruction of the
facts : they belong to 'rejected knowledge', to the hypotheses that
academic science, including the social one, has discarded, in the same
way as it has discarded the theories of the flat earth, of the
conspiracy of catholics (or Jesuits) who purportedly organised the
murder of Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) or of the actual Jewish origin
of that fake manufactured by Russian anti-semitic circles which the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion are." ('Miti anti-israeliani sull'11
settembre: gli "israeliani danzanti" e gli "studenti d'arte
israeliani" - http://www.cesnur.org/2008/mi_miti_isr.htm). This text
is part of a series of five articles called 'Miti negazionisti sull'11
settembre'. Note that, in the title, the word 'negationist' is not in
quotation marks.

Leaving aside the 9/11 issue, what we are aiming at here is to show
the extraordinary power of insight and of penetration of current
mental arms of the Golem like Introvigne.

His views on the recent Mumbai attacks can be read in Italian here :
http://www.cesnur.org/2008/mi_mumbai.htm Needdless to translate this
article : it is - grosso modo - identical to the official version
which has been spread by Jew-owned media, from Moscow to Washington,
from Berlin to Paris.

More seriously, "As first reported by WMR while the corporate press
was uttering the "Al Qaeda" bogeyman as likely behind the terror
attacks on Mumbai, the Press Trust of India (PTI) is now confirming
WMR's initial report that Pakistan- and Dubai-based criminal syndicate
boss Dawood Ibrahim's gangsters handed over the weapons and explosive
material to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) terrorists to carry out the assault
on targets in Mumbai. (...) The Oberoi hostages were shot in the back
of their heads, a typical gangland execution method preferred by
Ibrahim and not the firing squad method used by LET. The outbreak of
fires in rooms at the Oberoi also point to the possibility that the
hotel was being used by British, American (possibly Defense
Intelligence Agency), Australian, and Israeli non-official cover (NOC)
agents as a base and documents were being destroyed before the hotel
was fully secured by the Ibrahim-LET assailants. There was an initial
report that a number of bodies of white males brought out of the
Oberoi were Australians. A report in Kashmir Times, since removed from
its website, claimed that the terrorists that entered the Taj Mahal
Palace hotel had identified two senior U.S. intelligence officers in
the crowd." (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4082.shtml)






Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:32 pm

evola_as_he_is
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
< Prev Message  |  Next Message > 
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

In 'The New Pearl Harbor : Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11', David Ray Griffin put forward most interesting considerations on the...
evola_as_he_is Offline Send Email Dec 14, 2008
4:33 pm

Copyright © 2012 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy - Guidelines NEW - Help