Mark Crispin Miller, Truther, on 9/11 Free Fall with Andrew Steele

[nationalize the fed]

Truly Essential Radio for those that DO care!

http://noliesradio.org/archives/89386
This show was broadcast October 2, 2014

Mark Crispin Miller



Mark Crispin Miller is professor of media studies at New York University,and the author of the several books. In this discussion he talks about the media, propaganda, and the use of the weaponized term “conspiracy theory” to marginalize those who speak out on issues like the 9/11 controlled demolition evidence.

Mark Crispin Miller is the author of the book: Fooled Again, How the Right Stole the 2004 Elections. He is known for his writing on American media and for his activism on behalf of democratic media reform. His books include Boxed In: The Culture of TV, Seeing Through Movies, and Mad Scientists, a study of war propaganda.

He is a signatory to the 9/11 Truth Statement.

He graduated from Northwestern University with a BA in 1971, Johns Hopkins University with an MA in 1973, and a Ph.D. in 1977.

Political commentary

Miller writes in his book, Fooled Again, that the 2000 U.S. Presidential election and 2004 U.S. Presidential election were stolen. Miller presents extensive documentation, backed by 56 pages of notes, supporting his contention that the outcome of both elections was altered and controlled by a small minority. He states that the American voting populace can no longer assume that their votes will be accurately assessed, and that the installation of electronic voting machines in state after state is a fundamental flaw in the U.S. electoral system. He appeared in the 2004 documentary Orwell Rolls in His Grave, which focuses on the hidden mechanics of the media, its role as it should be and what it actually is, and how it shapes (to the point of almost controlling) U.S. politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Crispin_Miller

[William Seger]

1. Propaganda

Last edited Sun Oct 5, 2014, 05:01 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.

[nationalize the fed]

2. 1. Why do YOU think the Bush Regime resisted an investigation into

the most spectacular crime (by 19 Arabs with Box Cutters) against the US in all of History?

2. Why do YOU think Bush and Dick refused to testify under oath?

Take all the time you need, Billy. They're tough questions.

[William Seger]

3. You've already rejected the most obvious answers

Suit yourself. Take all the time you need responding to what I posted here and in your other threads.

[wildbilln864]

5. obvious doesn't always mean correct!

especially when the correct is hidden from scrutiny.

[William Seger]

6. I didn't say it's "correct" or that I know

... but if nationalize the fed insists on an answer to his question, yeah, I'll go with the most obvious one until given some reason to prefer a different one. The point is, you can't just presume that the reason was that they were afraid of spilling the beans about the magical silent explosives they planted all over the WTC, and then use that same presumption as evidence that that's what they did. There are perfectly plausible theories about a real conspiracy to cover up the intelligence failures and the hijackers' Saudi backing, but since they are both plausible and substantive, they aren't properly called "conspiracy theories." As I've said before, the "truth movement" does nothing but distract from serious issues.

[zappaman]

4. They're not tough questions

They didn't want to have to account for the fact that they fucked up.
Now you know!