This weblog gets a few hits once in a while, and a few weeks ago it got quite a lot of traffic, mostly focused on the subject of backlinks. However, none of the traffic lasts, and it has never translated into what appear to be "regular" readers (unless people are subscribing to the RSS feed, in which case I wouldn't know they were reading, right?). At any rate, I've long suspected that I won't get a lot of readers so long as I continue to express sentiments like McKinney's Prescience. These are not popular positions these days, and I'm guessing that people who drift across these pages and see such ideas are likely to dismiss "there is no spoon" as the rantings of a mad conspiracy theorist. Why would anyone want to read that?
Why, indeed. For the past few months one of my goals as a "blogger" has been to provide another outlet for different ways of thinking, perspectives that challenge the prevailing discourse and the mainstream media. In addition, I've assumed that if this goal makes me sound like a crackpot, so be it. However, today, after reading David Corn's The September 11 X-Files, I've realized I'm probably just shooting myself in my own foot if people dismiss me as a crack-headed conspiracy theorist. Corn's article details -- and, to a degree, debunks -- a few of the more popular conspiracy theories surrounding 9-11, including:
 George W. Bush did it. The Mossad did it. The CIA did it. Or they purposely did not thwart the assault--either to have an excuse for war, to increase the military budget or to replace the Taliban with a government sympathetic to the West and the oil industry. The theories claim that secret agendas either caused the attacks or drove the post-9/11 response, and these dark accounts have found an audience of passionate devotees. 
While I haven't really followed any of these conspiracy theories closely enough to assess their validity (I'm not even sure what "the Mossad" is), I see them as united by an underlying "theory" for which there really is a lot of evidence, namely: Bush and Co. (and corporate America, generally) cares very little about anything other than business, money, and reducing all barriers that stand in the way of the wealthiest Americans to continue amassing huge quantities of wealth. Bush and Co's policies comprise a massive body of evidence that this is true. From the administration's refusal to support environmental protections like the Kyoto Treaty, to the extreme haste with which it moves to eliminate worker-friendly measures like the ergonomics laws that would have held employers responsible for repetitive stress and other on-the-job injuries, to its attempts to "reform" welfare to eliminate assistance for the most needy in our country -- I could go on, but the point is: Bush and Co. wears its priorities on its sleeve, yet it constantly says things like "we care about the environment" and "we really want to help the poor people in this country." In other words, Bush and Co. lies as a matter of policy, so why should anyone believe what it's saying about 9-11?
Nevertheless, Corn's conclusions have caused me to rethink my strategies for getting my readers to think about what I see as the contradictions between what Bush and Co. says and what it does. Corn concludes that conspiracy theories often distract from the truth, which is often bad enough:
One problem with conspiracy theorizing is that it can distract from the true and (sometimes mundane) misdeeds and mistakes of government. But when the government is reluctant to probe its own errors, it opens the door wider for those who would turn anomalies into theories or spin curious fact--or speculation--into outlandish explanation. Not that all who do so need much encouragement. September 11 was so traumatic, so large, that there will always be people who look to color it--or exploit it--by adding more drama and intrigue, who seek to discern hidden meanings, who desire to make more sense of the awful act. And there will be people who want to believe them.
Corn is right: the truth -- whatever it turns out to be -- is bad enough, and getting all worked up over conspiracy theories does less good than serious and meaningful consideration of ways to improve the world we find ourselves in today. So my own conclusion is that I'll continue to follow and comment upon the issues that seem important, and to thank people like McKinney for having the courage to voice unpopular opinions. However, I'll try to clearly separate my conspiracy theorizing (which really can be quite fun -- as an imaginative exercise) from the things that can be proven and which therefore matter more.
9:50:33 AM 
|
|
