Creative Speculation

Last edited Sun Oct 5, 2014, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

@16:15, Miller says:

"There's a broad range of subjects that have been rendered taboo by the use of this propaganda tactic, and it really has had disastrous consequences, because I don't think that any democracy can survive if its citizens actually hold such a sentimental view of their own government that they dare not even imagine much less discuss the possibility that that government has made moves against their freedom, against their rights."

What has had "disastrous consequences" for most "conspiracy theories" is that there have been many people who have "dared" to discuss them -- many of whom actually know what they're talking about -- and many more who have followed those discussions closely and come to their own rational conclusions. If you want to talk about disastrous consequences for democracy, what effect do you predict when unsubstantiated speculation is represented as "truth," and any counter evidence is dismissed as fake, and any sound reasoning that reaches a different conclusion is dismissed as part of the conspiracy cover-up?

"So, anyway, it's been years since I guess I could say I joined the 9/11 Truth Movement because it's an entirely rational movement. The arguments, you know, raised against the official explanation of that horrible day are entirely sound arguments. They're scientifically unassailable arguments."

Bullshit, Mr. Miller. If that were true, you wouldn't need to be proselytizing on that obscure webcast, because it would be common knowledge in the scientific community that you insult. In fact, "truthers" have yet to even bring these "scientifically unassailable arguments" from YouTube to the scientific community in the form of technical papers published in reputable journals or conference presentations. That hasn't prevented informal debate all over the net, of course, in excruciating detail, over and over and over. From where I sit, those arguments have not only been assailed but dismembered, leaving little doubt in my mind as to why "truther science" hasn't gotten beyond YouTube. If Miller disagrees with that characterization, I couldn't care less, but Miller seems to be oblivious to (or disingenuously ignores) the fact that the debate has already happened. Conveniently, that leaves him free to pretend that the manifest failures of the "truth movement" and other conspiracists to make convincing cases are really because of CIA propaganda -- another cycle through the spiraling delusions of conspiracism, and an insult to the rational inquiry that he only pretends to champion.

Wildbill has recently brought us a parade of Richard Gage's "experts" and their "scientifically unassailable arguments," and when challenged, it's pretty clear that "truthers" around here "dare not even imagine much less discuss the possibility" that they don't know what the hell they're talking about. So please spare me the sanctimonious hypocrisy, Mr. Miller. Clearly, it's "truthers" who are victims of propaganda tactics, and not only have you excluded them from your famous fight against propaganda, you have cast your lot with that effort.