|
|
Post by tombldr on Jan 29, 2005 15:18:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Jan 30, 2005 4:28:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tombldr on Jan 30, 2005 16:26:18 GMT -5
That's the first I've seen of that book or author. I looked it up on Amazon but it was "unavailable". FYI Griffin has another book since NPH, released 11/30/04, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions
here's audio MP3 of a 12/27/04 Pacifica Radio Flashpoints interview with Griffin about this latest book. Also, see www.septembereleventh.org for more Griffin info/articles/audio files, as well as a new dvd of a recent speech of his which they are offering for a $20 donation. |
|
|
|
Post by tombldr on Mar 20, 2005 13:37:09 GMT -5
I should add, you can watch the ~1 hour Griffin spiel re ..Omissions/Distortions at www.snowshoefilms.comVery good, highly recommended. |
|
|
|
Post by tombldr on Mar 20, 2005 14:19:37 GMT -5
I found this terrific article criticising/parsing the value of Griffin's NPH: 911: Griffin Reconsidered by George Trinkaus It provoked alot of thought, as I've bought several copies of the book and had shipped to family members who I considered to be "asleep" and skeptical of my "radical" beliefs re 911 with all of 911-truth's grand implications as to where we are and where we're going. And I gravitated towards NPH in part because of Griffin's academic straight-man credentials. I stand by my conviction that NPH with it's shortcomings which this article points out; remains a nice, credible, 'respecble' gateway to the rabbit hole of truth. Once the skeptical new visitor's mind has been pried open just a crack with NPH, there are many directions they can "graduate to" ie Jones, Ruppert, the NWO menace etc. But here's a few snippets from the above article to give a flavor: Griffin is very selective of his sources. The above-named are deemed acceptable; many others are not.. There are a number of interesting omissions. Researchers whom Dr. Griffin has decided that (on the basis of criteria not supplied) lie outside the etiquette. Those who are under the influence of the professor tend to take these exclusions very seriously. A snobbery is encouraged. Among those excluded are Jim Marrs, Alex Jones, Anthony J. Hilder, and David Vonkleist, to name a few. A common denominator of this group is that, unlike the innocent Dr. Griffin, when 911 occurred, they all knew instantly what was coming down and where it was coming from. They also tend to take a greater interest in 911's impacts on the U.S.A. (as opposed to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.).
They focus on the threat to the U.S. population by a reinforced police state and on the menace to the citizenry by the New World Order, phenomena they have studied for many years. Yet their analysis of the 911 evidence is strikingly similar to that of Griffin and his bunch. Perhaps they are perceived as a bit audacious and raffish compared to a sedate professor of theology. Liberals have traditionally dismissed activists like these as "right wing." Please define. Today, if the neo-cons are the "right," then how can those who oppose them 180 degrees also be "the right?" In addition to their intrinsic worth, these researchers have extensive constituencies that they reach by various radio syndications (as well as by public appearances, videos, and books), and some are themselves syndicated talk-show broadcasters. The Griffinite snobbery that excludes this group, along with all of their followers, can only weaken the movement. Divide and conquer, says the System, and this is what Griffinism encourages.
...
People new to this kind of conspiratorial politics also may wish to soothe the nagging in their own psyches, their inner discomfort over this novel transgression into dark, taboo, and politically incorrect territory. Many are drawn to the professor in the wish that some of his respectability may rub off and ease the way. But is such self-consciousness and defensiveness healthy to the psyche of an individual?
The have-it-both-ways, politically-correct Griffinite position is an insecure spiritual footing and may require tranquilizers and antidepressants to maintain. One is better off letting go and allowing passage over the gap into where fearlessness and solidarity can be found. In an individual or a movement, energy cannot flow freely through self-consciousness and defensiveness. They are fundamentally debilitating and disempowering. And what about the wish for respectability itself? Can it be vitalizing, or is it poison?
...
So, in his Part Two, Griffin abandons Inside Job, mounts a safer horse and gallops on toward his Conclusion, his final posture. This is, incredibly, a plea to the government for a "full investigation." The impetus for such a phenomenon would come from the Fourth Estate. "It is only when the press leads the way that there can be an official investigation," declares Griffin. OK, class, let's get this straight. A fascist military junta, on the heels of a stolen election, blows up 3000 people, then on this pretext goes to war in three theatres, one being its own citizenry, to whom it declares, "You are either with us or against us."
The junta threatens another national-security event bigger and uglier than 911. It squelches all police-agency investigations. It rigs two bogus official investigations. It conducts a cover-up and big-lie propaganda in the mass media and in the foundation-funded left media, both of which the junta has under its totalitarian control. All the above Griffin, in his own elusive way, has acknowledged in pages preceding. Still the coy professor is insisting that right action under these extenuating circumstances is to petition that same fascist government and its controlled media. Well, I guess that's just the sensible, respectable, reasonable, and grown-up thing to do. Had we but world enough and time ...
Is liberalism a true political position from which action can be taken, or is it just a psychological-adjustment syndrome, a tranquilizer that enables the more sensitive and thoughtful to live with the ugliness of our system of rule? From the well-schooled demographic that is particularly stricken with this syndrome, a liberal elite emerges: academics, bureaucratic professionals, think-tankers, publishers, broadcasters, pundits, and a steady crop of pathetic politicians (Liebermans, Schumers, Kerrys). They feed on the fires of true revolt burning in those whom they may cast out at any time for crimes of candor and spontaneous passion (the Dean scream). "What we usually call human maturity is some kind of resigned reasonableness" (Albert Schweitzer).
...
Griffin treats 911 as if it were an isolated item from the remote historical past. He even refers to himself and some of his sources as "revisionists," as if they were academics rewriting a long established historical text. When the 911 Team contrives the next national security event, 911 will indeed become academic. When the "homeland" goes code red, this period of vocalized dissent may prove, historically, to be just a momentary luxury.
|
|
|
|
Post by karpomrx on Mar 21, 2005 11:57:50 GMT -5
For me, 911 was the final event in breaking away from my "chains of illusion", which had allowed me to cling to the notion that there was a real nation which had moral and ethical hopes not bound by crass material values.
Coming from a patriotic family, having liberal values, seeing the contest between progressive and conservative "values" as an exercise in democracy came naturally. The child is the father to the man.
I am now as distant from most of my peers as can be. I may as well have landed from another planet. To question the truth of 911 is regarded as "whacko", and very few persons will even try to discuss any part of the events with me, save attacking me for my lack of "reality".
I am very glad that I have this site and others to remind me that the emperor has no clothes.
|
|
