An excellent reflection of Globalization.ca about 11/3 and how the event was interpreted at the Montreal conference on May XNUMX. Note also the presentation of Asch's principle, which allows us to better understand why the official thesis is so well accepted.
« Of course, the people do not want war. It is natural and we understand it. But after all it is the leaders of the country who decide the policies. Whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship, it will always be easy to get the people to follow. Whether or not they have the right to speak, the people can always be made to think like their leaders. It's easy. It is enough to tell him that he is under attack, to denounce the lack of patriotism of the pacifists and to assure that they are putting the country in danger. The techniques remain the same, regardless of the country [1]. »
Hermann Göring during his trial in Nuremberg
« The conscious, intelligent manipulation of the organized opinions and habits of the masses plays an important role in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this imperceptible social mechanism form an invisible government that truly rules the country [2]. »
Edward Bernays, father of propaganda
Media coverage of the 11/3 conference held on May XNUMX in Montreal gave rise to the usual circus of propaganda, censorship and denigration, despite a certain openness and greater media weight. The two star speakers, architect Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and David Ray Griffin, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, professor emeritus of theology and philosophy of religion at the Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, author of nine books on the events of September 11, call for a new investigation into the attacks, because the official version of the events, supporting evidence, does not hold water. A question was on the lips of many journalists: how come so many people don't believe the official version?
Let us ask the opposite question, since those who are called "truthers" or, in order to discredit them without too much finesse, "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy theorists", wonder for their part why so many people believe again the official version, which too, like the three towers of the World Trade Center (WTC), has crumbled under the mountain of factual, technical and scientific evidence revealed over the past 9 years.
The answer is actually quite simple. A brief knowledge of the psychology of crowds and the fundamental mechanisms of propaganda makes it easy to understand this phenomenon which manifests itself for the following reasons: the power of images and words, persuasion and social pressure.
The power of images and words
Everyone remembers 11/2003, the biggest attack on US soil. The shock was global in scale. We have all seen the planes hitting the towers and the twin towers collapsing repeatedly. This scene created a “shock and amazement” effect, the name given to the first bombings in Iraq in XNUMX. Under the effect of the shock, reasoning slipped away from human brains, thus creating fertile ground for suggestion.
Anger gripped Americans who only wanted one thing: revenge. The culprit, we learned a few hours later, without any investigation having been set up, was Osama bin Laden, a Muslim fanatic, a terrorist. Suddenly, Islamic terrorism has unleashed a war without borders, since terrorism, the ideal enemy of imperialism, has no nationality.
Since that day, in the West, the terms “terrorism” and “Muslim” have gone hand in hand. Many people hear "terrorist" and see a Muslim. Since that day, we accept that our rights and freedoms are restricted to avoid "another September 11". Since that day, “everything has changed”. Everything changed? Not the psychology of crowds or the mechanics of propaganda.
In its simplest form, propaganda consists of affirming one thing, repeating it and propagating it [3]. Recognized for his prowess in this area, Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Information and Propaganda said this:
“By dint of repetition and with the help of a good knowledge of the psyche of the persons concerned, it should be quite possible to prove that a square is in fact a circle. Because after all, what are “circle” and “square”? Simple words. And words can be shaped to make the ideas they convey unrecognizable. »
The “conspiracy enthusiasts”
More and more people no longer believe the official story of 11/XNUMX. Why is that? asks the perplexing mainstream press and intellectual elite. Their answer is simple: they are “conspiracy theorists” and “conspiracy theories”. People who rely on obscure blogs, who have no solid proof of what they say and who do not have good sources of information. However, they rely on information from the mainstream media to identify inconsistencies both from the authorities and the media. We even go so far as to call them paranoid, schizoid, in short, individuals of dubious mental health. These terms are used almost inevitably in mainstream media to qualify skeptics.
Media coverage of the conference by MM. Griffin and Gage is a recent example of this propaganda. The conference was held at the University of Quebec in Montreal, which created unease among the faculty, as can be seen in this article from La Presse:
Julien Tourreille, researcher at the United States Observatory at the Raoul-Dandurand Chair, accuses them of being "intellectually dishonestand even calls them "liars, imposters and scammers". "I find it a shame to see the name of UQAM attached to such a movement, it does not serve the credibility of a research institution which tries, in the public square, to demonstrate that it employs serious people." (Emphasis added by the author)
For a researcher who demands the seriousness of his institution, indulging in such powerful ad hominem attacks turns out to be quite paradoxical. This kind of behavior tarnishes the credibility of an institution more than a conference where two academicians rigorously demonstrate their arguments without stooping to this type of childish behavior.
À Christianne Charrette show on the radio of Radio-Canada, the Canadian public network, the organizer of the event, Jean-François Ranger, was invited to discuss the question with "experts": journalist Alain Gravel and a political specialist American Donald Cuccioletta. This gave rise to a fine example of an appeal to authority when the host asked: “And you Mr. Ranger, you are not an expert? You're not a journalist, you're not… what are you? I am a simple citizen who asks questions, ”replied Mr. Ranger. With this kind of introduction, the dice are loaded. Without lapsing into low level rhetoric, the arguments of the target person are discredited even before the start of the discussion. His testimony will not stand up to that of the “experts”.
Obviously, we were then released the ultimate argument to denigrate those who dare to doubt the official versions in general: the extraterrestrials. The controversy aroused by this event has been compared to a possible conference by Raël, founder of the Raelian movement, whose doctrine is based on the extra-terrestrial origin of humans. Comparing two famous academicians to the guru of a controversial sect is one of two things: either one deliberately tries to discredit a person or one hides his ignorance, a total absence of valid argument, as well as a high degree of permeability to propaganda. AT the Denis Lévesque show at the private television network TVA, Mr. Ranger faced the same absurd and totally baseless analogy: in other words you doubt the official version so you are the kind of person who believes in extra-terrestrials.
The day after the conference, the Desautels show at Radio-Canada, the journalist who covered the conference carried out a fine exercise in debunking. First he explains the success of the conference to this “tradition of contesting official versions, such as the assassination of Kennedy, did we go to the moon, etc”. But he adds, without seeing any contradiction, that according to polls the majority of Americans and a third of Canadians are skeptical. He then makes a “strawman”: he takes a few arguments from the speakers, which, taken out of context and distorted, are easy to demolish. He concludes that "that's a lot of plotters" and draws up a long list of the latter, to name ironically in closing, the media, "who since that time have been peddling lies and hiding the truth". In addition, adds the host to support the unbolting of his colleague, “no one among these plotters has opened up since and told the truth”. "Perhaps it's all that extra-terrestrials," concludes the journalist. More aliens.
It is obvious that this report with shaky conclusions, full of disinformation serves to discredit an opinion. None of the speakers, nor the host of the evening, said that the media was part of a big conspiracy, but rather that they were not doing their job of questioning the assertions of the authorities. Also, few conspirators come to justice themselves, so this can in no way serve as proof that there was no conspiracy. But what is more disturbing is that these journalists are deliberately smearing a majority of Americans and a third of Canadian citizens. For a public information network that wants to be the reference in journalism, this kind of behavior is unacceptable.
But are all these journalists and experts agents of propaganda acting in full knowledge of the facts? No way. The insidious despotism of social pressure should not be underestimated.
Asch's experiment and conformism
Asch's experience demonstrates how an individual's decisions are subject to the influence of the group in which they find themselves, as can be seen in the following video:
This experience may explain three phenomena surrounding 11/XNUMX: credulity in the face of the official explanation for the collapse of the towers, the disparagement of skeptics of the official version, and the growing popularity of this skepticism.
Experience demonstrates this masterfully: people are strongly inclined to deny what they see with their own eyes in order to conform to the dominant opinion. This is what seems to be happening with the collapse of the three towers, that is to say the two twin towers and tower 7, Achilles' heel of the official version, of which no mention has been made in the original official reports and long ignored by the media: each collapse has all the characteristics of a controlled demolition and none of the characteristics of a building destroyed by fire, official explanation of the government body, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
In addition to being the only three buildings to have been completely pulverized by fire in the history of humanity, if we believe the incoherent explanations of the NIST, which moreover had to modify its conclusions, they are the three alone to have collapsed in exactly the same way. However, as Richard Gage points out, the collapses of buildings due to fire are unique because they are not planned. However, the similarity between controlled demolition and the three WTC collapses is undeniable.
Moreover, the detraction of which the skeptics are victims is not enough to attract the crowds. Asch's experience illustrates well how many people prefer not to express an opinion contrary to the dominant opinion. But this attitude changes when the individual in question feels supported by another person. Could this explain the growing popularity of the 11/XNUMX truth movement? Most likely.
Originally, the questioning of the terrorist attack was a marginal phenomenon to which systematic slander was admirably suited. George W. Bush warned us to " do not tolerate any conspiracy theories relating to 11/XNUMX ". Apart of course, the Islamist conspiracy. His successor, Mr. Obama has do the same. The dominant press obeyed the finger and the eye.
Despite the tissue of lies revealed by independent researchers and journalists, the mainstream media have no choice but to support the official thesis, since they have defended it fiercely from the start. We know the inability of the media to practice self-criticism and we saw it with the "first pandemic of the century": the mea culpa is a concept that is totally foreign to them and they practically never admit their lack of rigor and of a critical spirit towards the authorities. They recognized the links between the World Health Organization and the pharmaceutical industry only when these were denounced by another authority, the Council of Europe. But it was too little too late. They have lost enormous credibility in the eyes of the public, unlike the independent press, which has not blindly submitted to authority. Have the media forgotten their role as a counterweight to the authorities?
Today, people are less and less afraid to express their doubts about the official thesis of the September 11 attacks, largely because they feel less alone, but also because the media and the authorities have so abused of the ad hominem argument that it no longer has any effectiveness. If this tactic served to avoid debating legitimate questions about the catalyst event of the great wars of this decade, anyone who uses it today is making a fool of themselves. And the one who uses ridicule, handles a two-edged sword that always ends up turning against himself.
So why more and more people don't believe the official version? Because "traditionally this kind of event gives rise to all sorts of conspiracy theories", as the media and the authorities repeat endlessly? No. Simply because facts, logic and the laws of physics dictate it. Why do so many people still believe the official version? The media should ask the question. For now, Asch's experience certainly provides part of the answer.
Julie Lévesque, for Globalization.ca
Julie Levesque is a journalist and researcher at the Center for Research on Globalization.
Sent by Infoguerilla
source: Mecanopolis
Terms & Conditions
Subscribe
Report
My comments