|
19 September 2010 By Denis G.
Rancourt September 2010. This essay was
first posted on the Activist Teacher blog. http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-we-love-to-hate-conspiracy-theories.html Especially left and liberal
professionals and service intellectuals but also
right-wing members of the intelligentsia vehemently
attack and ridicule “conspiracy theories” such as the
present 911 Truth movement. Why? It’s as though power did not
covertly orchestrate its predation of us? Is that not
the modus operandi of power? Is it so difficult to believe
that the complex and highly successful military attack
on US soil that was 911 (levelling three gigantic sky
scrapers, blasting a hole into the Pentagon, and
destroying four commercial jets and their passengers)
was not orchestrated by a religious zealot from a cave
in Afghanistan and executed by failed Cessna pilot
trainees with box cutters? Or that those who
measurably benefited in the trillions had nothing to
do with it? What the hell? Not even
(admittedly rare) authoritative mainstream reports
seem to matter [1]. What ever happened to “war is a
racket” and “follow the money”? In rigorous compliance with the
true meanings of academic freedom [2] and freedom of
the press virtually no academics or mainstream
journalists have made it their research to find truth
or to radically (at the root) question the
establishment version. Indeed, all the major and
considered-radical academic pundits such as Noam
Chomsky and Ward Churchill, have actively avoided the
possibility that the 911 attacks could have been known
or aided from within the finance-corporate-military
complex. What keeps them from crossing
that line? What makes them demean attempts to cross
that line? [3] Similarly, even outspoken
dissident parliamentary politicians such as George
Galloway have ridiculed the concerns of 911 truthers
(at his last public talk in Ottawa). Is such self and projected
censorship by star intellectuals only the result of
the fear of being mobbed by ridicule? Is asking these
questions in public fora so dangerous? When barred and suppressed Afghan
Member of Parliament Malalai Joya was asked about 911
by a truther in Ottawa last year she replied that
those who sought answers in this matter should address
their questions to the occupiers of the White House.
To this writer’s knowledge, this is the furthest that
any politician has gone in this direction, coming from
“the bravest woman in Afghanistan” no less. But what shocked the present
writer more is the derision to which was subjected the
truther at the Malalai Joya Ottawa event, at the hands
of an “activist” and “progressive” crowd. The intelligentsia appears to be addicted to the illusion that it has a monopoly on valid analysis and understanding. In order to preserve this illusion and to protect its standing in providing interpretations of the World, the intelligentsia must limit the scope of all investigations to domains that fall within its self-established interpretational paradigms (right-left, power politics, geopolitical chess board, corporate motives, etc.) and self-established research protocols. Those paradigms and protocols, in turn, and the rigorously followed discipline of not supposing the worst in one’s research stance, were established in academia at the time when “academic freedom” was being defined by the cornerstone nineteenth century US battles for professional independence in academia. The academics and society lost that battle [2]: “[T]he economists were the first professional analysts to be “broken in,” in a battle that defined the limits of academic freedom in universities. The academic system would from that point on impose a strict operational separation between inquiry and theorizing as acceptable and social reform as unacceptable. Any academic wishing to preserve her position understood what this meant. As a side product, academics became virtuosos at nurturing a self-image of importance despite this fatal limitation on their societal relevance, with verbiage such as: The truth is our most powerful weapon, the pen is mightier than the sword, a good idea can change the world, reason will take us out of darkness, etc.” Academics and “radical professors” train the intelligentsia… And power owns the media. TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH But much more importantly power owns us, owns our jobs, owns students at school and owns the homeless on the street, the First Peoples on the reserves and the prisoners in the jails. As long as we are owned, information about abuse of power is irrelevant for social change. This is the sociological fact that the 911 Truth movement has failed to recognize [4]. Truth will not set us free. Truth and information do not lead to action. It’s not a question of how many folks know the truth. It’s only a question of what the truth means in real terms to however few individuals and will these individuals rebel, actually rebel and individually take back power over their lives. Contrary to the mantra of our left academic idols, truth and research are not threatening to power in a culture of subservience and obedience. In such a culture, radical-in-thought academics only stabilize the system by neutralizing the more action-minded youth. [5] In such a culture, the only truth that is threatening to power is one that it perceives as an attack on its self-image [6]. And, in such a culture, psychological self-image arising from power’s connection to the broader society is the only force that can move power to constrain itself [6]. In this measure, in the present culture, 911 Truth could have an impact. In this way, some of the low-level actual perpetrators and facilitators of 911 could eventually be sacrificed in show trials or in mainstream smear campaigns. In conclusion, the intelligentsia works at protecting itself (and by extension the system) and therefore will be a visceral opponent of 911 Truth until it can integrate 911 Truth and participate in neutralizing 911 Truth in order for power to save face. Or, some citizens might actually rebel? The extent and projection/potential of such pockets of rebellion is the only force capable of leveraging real concessions from power [7][8][9].
Endnotes [1] “Major media articles on 9-11 raise questions” by Fred Burks, 2010, Want to Know. http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/../major-media-articles-on-9-11-raise-questions/ [2] “Some big lies of science” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html [3] “Questioning Foundations: An Interview with Denis Rancourt” by Michael Barker, 2010, Dissident Voice. http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/06/questioning-foundations-an-interview-with-denis-rancourt/ [4] “911 Truth” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/03/911-truth.html [5] “Against Chomsky” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2008. http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2008/07/against-chomsky.html [6] “Psycho-biological basis for image leverage and the case of Israel” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/06/psycho-biological-basis-for-image.html [7] “On the racism and pathology of left progressive First-World activism” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-racism-and-pathology-of-left.html [8] “Roundabout as conflict-avoidance versus Malcolm X’s psychology of liberation” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/roundabout-as-conflict-avoidance-versus.html [9] “Murder and genocide are natural, therefore rebel!” by Denis G. Rancourt, 2010. http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/09/murder-and-genocide-are-natural.html RELATED VIDEO REPORTS: corbettreport.com: 9/11 Truth is Still the Issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiA3K8CGQ-0 TheRealNews: 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0HJdvD6SJk
Denis G. Rancourt was a tenured and full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada. He practiced several areas of science which were funded by a national agency and ran an internationally recognized laboratory. He published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals. He developed popular activism courses and was an outspoken critic of the university administration and a defender of student and Palestinian rights. He was fired for his dissidence in 2009 by a president who is a staunch supporter of Israeli policy. [See rancourt.academicfreedom.ca]
|
Add Comments