PressEthic

I submit that Loose Change, beyond advancing a theory so laughable that no serious person should take it seriously, commits an ethical breach as grave as any piece of rhetoritic in the post-9/11 era.

WIth the world temperature quite high, and large swaths of the world already rife with conspiracy theories about "evil America," these filmmakers have produced a piece of intellectually dishonest propoganda sure to increase the hatred for America in the world on grounds that are utterly wrong.

I judge them the same way I would judge someone who made anti-Jewish propoganda in the lead up to World War II, or someone who today produced a documentary accusing Arab Americans of a far-reaching plot to take over the United States in the name of Allah.

George W. Bush is sometimes criticized for helping to turn world opinion against the United States. Loose Change -- because it is transparent propoganda -- at the very least deserves criticism on the same grounds.

Finally, I want to address one element of the post above:

In his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, George Bush described the 9/11 terrorists and anyone who supports them as “enemies of humanity.” He has previously called them “evil.” By doing this he is judging them, and encouraging others to judge them, in a biased moral framework, denying their actions any value within the political process.

What's wrong with judging the 9/11 terrorists? They murdered almost 3,000 innocent people! The idea that judging them is improper because it occurs within "a biased moral framework" is absurd -- there are few moral imperatives more universal than that it is wrong to murder innocents.

As for "denying their actions any value within the political process," um, in what world is flying jetliners into skyscrapers part of "a political process"? A political process is a framework for settling disagreements without reverting to violence. When people fly jetliners into skyscrapers one accurate euphimism to describe it is "the breakdown of the political process." In case there is any doubt, those responsible for the breakdown are the evil enemies of humanity who flew the planes.

I haven't seen the film. Even though I think its silly, I would like to see what "evidence" they offer. The gist of it reminds me of things I've heard from various "political" Hollywood types. I remember Charlie Sheen saying that 9/11 was an "inside job". That's right, Sheen took a break from cocaine and whores to share his profound wisdom with the public. What I thought about Sheen's comment at the time is what I think about movies like "Loose Change". Bush is so hated by the far left, that they cannot grant that he is right about anything. Since Bush believes that there is a large and violent anti-American Islamist community that is responsible for 9/11, it must be wrong. To grant that America was attacked by the people Bush says it was is to side with him to some extent. The facts of 9/11 are an inconvenient obstacle for the passionate Bush-hating crowd, so they must reinvent them. What about the terrrorists that continue to be caught on planes, trains, etc? Are they all planted by the Bush Administration in a nefarious scheme to enlarge the coffers of his oil-industry buddies? There are people chanting "Death to America" all over the Arab world and the Charlie Sheens are willfully ignoring them.

Why do these "enemies of humanity" hate America so much? Has America always been in the right in all of our political processes? The problem goes way beyond the actual 9/11 event... clearly people don't just fly planes into towers killing themselves as well for no reason. It is not my aim to judge who our President calls "evil"--- I don't live in their country therefore I do not understand their true motivation--- I don't even understand ours (America's) at this point. I also watched the Loose Change video on 9/11 after receiving it from protestors I was interviewing at the memorial service. It contained an ideology so completely opposite from everything we've been told that it is scary. If in some alternate universe it was factual then it would totally destroy any bit of the democracy and faith in our government that we as Americans have left. If America is the blind sided victim then why do so many countries see the evil in us?

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpy Dumpty had a great fall; All the King's horses and all the King's men, Couldn't put Humpty together again.

As anybody seen Jonas Mekas' short video movie on 9/11 ? it starts with a pictures of Lewis Caroll's Alice. On that picture you can hear Mekas repeating - like a nursery rhyme : "it's a dreadfull little story". Then you see the burning towers of New York filmed with a digital camera by Mekas himself. By his side, you can hear a woman scream and cry. Mekas turns the camera to his own face and then back to the towers. During 60 years Mekas as been filming selfportaits and portraits of his family and friends. In those 60 years, he emigrated from Lituania to New York, like a lot of europeans running away from the nazies, he lived as an artist and shared the life of the avant-garde in New York, went back to Lituania during the communist period (his film Reminiscence of a journey in Lituania), and in 2001 he filmed the attack of WTC. Watching his selfportaits over 60 years, is watching an individual going through History. You can feel history on the scale of an average man. THIS IS A PROCESS. But as Lewis Caroll says : it's difficult to put the peaces back together once the process is broken. The trauma of 9/11 makes it difficult to understand the political process from which it results. But it might also conseal it. By calling the terrorists "the enemies of humanity" and the "evil", Bush hides the polical process behind transcendantal (that is universal) moral values. As a defender of Good, he claims to be all mighty. Since "Iraq war worsens terrorism threat" (NYtimes), one might think that - as we say in french : « hell is cobbled with good intentions ». Anyway. Miss Worrall, I am glad that you focused on the critical reversal of rhetoric and the use of common sense instead of letting yourself entirely convince by this « Loose Change ». The rhetoric of the film should be analysed before any conclusion. This film is is not a good example of what could be a critical enquiry about 9/11 (it’s not at all a good reporting). It only spreads confusion and gives way to a populist speach on politic who takes advantage of a feeling of helplessness. The sentence : « We highly encourage you to research this information yourselves and come to your own conclusions » is pure non-sense.

Why do these "enemies of humanity" hate America so much? Has America always been in the right in all of our political processes?

These enemies of America -- by which I mean Islamic terrorists -- don't just hate the United States.

To judge by their plots, both successful and planned but averted, they also hate Israel, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Germany, France, Denmark, Bali, the Netherlands, Canada, and Jordan... and surely others I've forgotten.

They hate the Pope, cartoonists who draw Muhammed, women who have sex before marriage, gay people, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Muslims who decide to convert to other religions, women who are raped, Theo Van Gogh, various beheaded Westerners, Jews and assorted others.

I suppose you could exhaustively examine the behavior of all these groups and nations and individuals, and figure out how they provoked Islamic fundamentalists to behead/blow-up/kill them.

On the other hand, you could conclude that they are religious fanatics, and that their fanaticism is the best explanation for their murderous actions, and that they are enemies of humanity.

In response to the comments made on this post:

Before I am categorised as having any kind of extreme political inclination, I would like to emphasise that nowhere have I said that I believe Loose Change’s version of events to be true. As I said at the beginning of my blog post, a discussion of whether or not it was true was not my point. However, I do think it is a valuable documentary for the reasons discussed above.

Furthermore, while I strongly object to some of the political viewpoints put forward in readers’ comments, I will refrain from getting into any in-depth political debates, because that is not what this forum is for.

In response to Conor:

Firstly, to make sweeping statements such as “intellectually dishonest propaganda” seems to me to be intellectually redundant. Argue your point. Why is it dishonest? If it’s propaganda, propaganda for whom?

Secondly, you say that Loose Change “commits an ethical breach as grave as any piece of rhetoric in the post-9/11 era.” If you re-read my post, you may notice that this was precisely my point. To quote myself:

Loose Change encourages the public to take a moment to consider what the world would be like if the dominant rhetoric was turned on the dominant rhetoricians.

Your response is testament to how destabilising a concept it is.

Thirdly, I accept your calling me out on what was a rather loosely phrased paragraph. I have edited it accordingly in an attempt to make my point clearer (see blog post above). I hope that helps.

In response to Todd:

You make an interesting point about the left’s unwillingness to accept anything that comes out of Bush’s mouth.

You then go on to say that the film is silly. You also tell us “what [you] think about films like Loose Change.” Unfortunately for your argument, however, your opening sentence states that you haven’t yet seen the film. Doesn't this put you in a difficult position to judge?

And finally, in response to Conor’s last comment in which he provides an indiscriminate list of countries and individuals that have apparently suffered from terrorists acts and then says:

I suppose you could exhaustively examine the behavior of all these groups and nations and individuals, and figure out how they provoked Islamic fundamentalists to behead/blow-up/kill them.

On the other hand, you could conclude that they are religious fanatics, and that their fanaticism is the best explanation for their murderous actions, and that they are enemies of humanity.

I can only assume that taking a moment to try to “figure out how they provoked Islamic fundamentalists” would inconveniently complicate Conor's world view. It would seem that this is also President Bush’s opinion.

Using Conor's technique, I too could provide numerous examples to illuminate what could have "provoked Islamic fundamentalists". But that would be a list, not an argument.

To finish, I will say again: the point of my blog was not to argue whether or not Loose Change was true, but rather to argue that there is a great value in considering: “what if it were true?”

Malika,

Thanks for your reply, and for the record I neither thought that you were asserting support for Loose Change nor meant to imply it -- my apologies if I didn't make that clear.

To address your points: 1) Firstly, to make sweeping statements such as “intellectually dishonest propaganda” seems to me to be intellectually redundant. Argue your point. Why is it dishonest? If it’s propaganda, propaganda for whom?

An extensive list of its inadequacies are impossible here, but suffice it to say that the film regularly cites Wikipedia as its primary source (even on very controversial matters), employs numerous logical non-sequitirs, suggests that a billionaire conspired to blow up his own skyscrapers in order to collect insurance money that amounts to less than his total losses, nowhere gives voice to and rebuts the strongest counterarguments against its theory... and there is so much more.

2) Perhaps I don't understand your point about "what the world would be like if the dominant rhetoric was turned on the dominant rhetoricians." As far as I can tell, you seem to be asserting that we're conditioned to assume certain things are true only or mostly because the media tells us so, that we are resistant to challenging those assumptions, and that it is therefore inherently valuable anytime alternative media challenges those assumptions.

I'll agree that we ought to challenge our assumptions. But I reject the notion that anything that challenges or is meant to challenge our assumptions or a dominant narrative is inherently a good thing.

I ask you this: the dominant narrative right now is that the Japanese internment during WWII was wrong, that racism is wrong, and that even if another terrorist attack perpetrated by Arab Muslims occurs we should not round up those subgroups in America and throw them into prisons.

Now imagine that the Bush Administration commissioned a film designed to challenge that dominant narrative. It might begin as an intellectually dishonest apologia for WWII era crimes against Japanese Americans, and proceed through various conspiracy theories and factually iffy character assaults on leading Arab Americans.

Would you say of that film, "Well, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do think it's valuable insofar as it offers a new perspective on what's been drummed into the heads of the Western world"?

Would you say, "It is a useful film since it forces the public to take a moment to consider what the world would be like if the dominant rhetoric was turned on the dominant rhetoricians"?

The Western world surely has enough flawed orthodoxies of thought vulnerable to factual, intellectually honest critiques that we can get by without relying on absurd conspiracy theories and propaganda films to challenge our thinking!

When one takes the position that challenging a dominant narrative is inherently valuable, one must then accept the most vile nonsense as valuable so long as it challenges a dominant narrative.

Instead I suggest that we laud those ideas and arguments that are advanced honestly, and that stand up to some basic level of scrutiny. In my opinion, Loose Change fails that test.

3) I can only assume that taking a moment to try to “figure out how they provoked Islamic fundamentalists” would inconveniently complicate Conor's world view. It would seem that this is also President Bush’s opinion.

My point wasn't that America shouldn't ever try to figure out why terrorists act, or whether we've somehow provoked them.

Rather, my point is that the fact of Islamic terrorism directed against the United States isn't itself evidence that we've done something unique to provoke it.

I think that the terrorist acts and attempted terrorist acts suffered by the decidedly-not-indiscriminate list of countries, groups and individuals I offered proves my point.

If the primary motivation of Islamic terrorism is to respond to American provocation, it makes little sense for Islamic terrorists to advocate the honor killings of Turkish German teenagers who get pregnant out of wedlock, or to threaten the life of Dutch parliamentarians, or to assert their historic right to Andalusia, or to kidnap Italian journalists, or to blow up commuter trains in India.

Either Islamic terrorists are motivated by some other factor that transcends American provocation, or they are motivated by lots of distinct provocations. In the latter case, I'm quite comfortable calling those who respond to every provocation by attempting the murders of those who provoke "enemies of humanity."