|
Browse categories
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 Customer Reviews
If you only read one book this year...make it this one., 07 Apr 2008
A devastating and enlightening critique of US foreign policy and the media complicit in its crimes. If you only read one Chomsky book, make it this one. It should be required reading on every media/politics/sociology course. The analysis is compelling and the conclusion shocking. The mainstream media cannot be trusted - seekers of truth must look elsewhere. It remains as relevant today as it's ever been. Enjoy.
Reductionists probably won't understand, 07 Aug 2007
Chomsky and Herman's analysis shows exactly how a series of filters working within a freeish capital market can lead to an institutional bias. Contrary to the opinion mentioned in "A shallow and illiberal piece of conspiracy-mongering" review above, this shows that there is no conspiracy. In actual fact for the filters to work otherwise would require a consistent left wing bias by individuals acting against their interests, education and background.
The best book available on the mainstream mass media, 13 Feb 2007
Manufacturing Consent is Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's devastating critique of a complacent mainstream mass media. The book analyses prominent stories from the 1980s and samples much commentary from newspapers such as the New York Times and finds a disturbing consensus that permeates through the media market, a market that promotes itself to the public as being open, unbiased, independent of and fiercely critical of, establishment power.
The truth, according to Herman and Chomsky, is that due to a convergence of several key factors such as newspaper ownership patterns, the huge influence of advertising and what the media call 'credible sources of news', the mainstream mass media presents a highly distorted impression of what is and isn't news and how that news is selectively framed, interpreted and presented to the consumer - 'consumer' because news media don't sell news to the public, they sell consumers to advertisers.
What Chomsky and Herman are at pains to point out is that this is not a conspiracy theory - no one tells Jeremy Paxman or Andrew Marr what to write or write about - they don't have to be told because they wouldn't have ascended the corporate media ladder if they hadn't already successfully internalised all the underlying assumptions beforehand.
Perhaps where the book falls down is that it is a product of its time: many of the key case studies have been drawn from the 1980s, such as the difference in how the media presented pro-democracy revolutions in Eastern Europe (they supported them as the pro-democracy movement opposed an Official Enemy of the United States, the victims of the Soviet army (or their proxies) were mourned and the leaders of the revolutions courted) compared to pro-democracy revolutions in Central America (the media opposed them as the dictators who ran countries like El Salvador were by default democrats because the U.S. supported them, the victims in the death-squad democracies were neglected (even if they were American nuns) and the leaders of the pro-democracy revolutions were slandered, misrepresented or simply ignored). However, the lessons that Herman and Chomsky draw out from these studies have ramifications beyond their individual cases and can be readily applied to comparisons betwixt, say, democratic mutterings from the media on Iran or North Korea, compared to their commentary on the same subject on Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
If you are a journalist, student of media or journalism, or simply have an interest in how the news is put together, this book should be your key text.
Devastating critique of the American mass media, 30 Aug 2006
In 'Manufacturing Consent', Herman and Chomsky provide a very powerful analysis of the way in which the 'corporate' media distort the reality of world events. The pair are +not+ conspiracy therorists, a label they are often dismissed with, but rather posit a number of ways in which journalists and editors unconsciously but inevitably serve the interests of those in power. The model of the media they present is supported by an overwhelming volume of citations, often from declassified government documents, and this characteristic rigor of research seems to leave very little room in which their opponents might manoeuver. However, these opponents have the power of repetition, and unfortunately this wins over reason and evidence almost every time; hence the bizarre beliefs of much of the Amerrican public.
The 'Propoganda Model' (PM) of the mass media posits five 'filters' which serve to emphasize those elements of the news favourable to the American elite (i.e. the goverment and the corporate interests that it serves), and edit out those that show it in a bad light. These are: "(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit-orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by goverment, business, and 'experts' funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) 'flak' as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) 'anticommunism' as a national religion and control mechanism." In the first two chapters, the authors expound the model that arises from these premises. In the remaing chapters they examine a number of case studies, including examples from Central America and Indochina, comparing the written records of the time - e.g. CIA reports, NGO investigations, foreign media sources - with the reports that appeared in the American press and television. These data (often quantifiable things such as column inches or number of front page articles) fit with convincing accuracy the predictions of the PM.
The presentation of the book is scientific in style: a hypothesis is suggested, and (overwhelming) evidence to support it is cited. These citations are what gives the PM its avantage over its rival model (i.e. that the media are agressive and noble seekers of the truth, who know no boundaries). As I said in the introduction, this rival model's persuasiveness lies only in the frequency with which it is repeated or implied. Of course the same could be said for the belief that the earth is flat; we have come to accept (or at least so we claim) that if we are given evidence that a conventional belief is flawed, we should reject it. This book, with its huge body of objective evidence, constitutes insurmountable proof that this rival theory is indeed fatally flawed, and should therefore be abandoned. The facts that this remains unacknowledged, and that the book's authors are patronised, fit perfectly the predictions of the PM.
I strongly recommend that you read this book: if you do so with an open mind, it will deepen your understanding, or shatter your illusions, depending on your current standpoint. However, for those falling into the latter category, i.e. those largely unfamiliar with Chomsky's thinking, I would recommend that you start out (as I did) with 'Understanding Power', which is somewhat boader in scope, dealing in addition with aspects of society other than the media. For those interested in how the British media compare with the American, the editors of 'medialens.org' have just produced a book called 'Guardians of Power' which I believe applies the PM to Britain, though I am yet to read it. Please do give 'Manufacturing Consent' a try; it is a true mile-stone in twentieth century thought, picking up with passion where Orwell left off.
how the media filters news, 24 Feb 2006
this book is the most difficult chomsky book i have ever read.it is the first serious attempt to show how biased our so called independent media is.it shows by using well known news events how different organizations have used the same story and come up with different conclusions.the media like any political organisation practices self censorship,it's interesting to see what the media leaves out of it's reporting.after reading this book you will develop a healthy scepticism about what you hear or read in the media.the media certainly knows manipulate facts to fit any view they like to promote.after reading this book i have a very dim view of so called media
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
If you only read one book this year...make it this one., 07 Apr 2008
A devastating and enlightening critique of US foreign policy and the media complicit in its crimes. If you only read one Chomsky book, make it this one. It should be required reading on every media/politics/sociology course. The analysis is compelling and the conclusion shocking. The mainstream media cannot be trusted - seekers of truth must look elsewhere. It remains as relevant today as it's ever been. Enjoy.
Reductionists probably won't understand, 07 Aug 2007
Chomsky and Herman's analysis shows exactly how a series of filters working within a freeish capital market can lead to an institutional bias. Contrary to the opinion mentioned in "A shallow and illiberal piece of conspiracy-mongering" review above, this shows that there is no conspiracy. In actual fact for the filters to work otherwise would require a consistent left wing bias by individuals acting against their interests, education and background.
The best book available on the mainstream mass media, 13 Feb 2007
Manufacturing Consent is Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's devastating critique of a complacent mainstream mass media. The book analyses prominent stories from the 1980s and samples much commentary from newspapers such as the New York Times and finds a disturbing consensus that permeates through the media market, a market that promotes itself to the public as being open, unbiased, independent of and fiercely critical of, establishment power.
The truth, according to Herman and Chomsky, is that due to a convergence of several key factors such as newspaper ownership patterns, the huge influence of advertising and what the media call 'credible sources of news', the mainstream mass media presents a highly distorted impression of what is and isn't news and how that news is selectively framed, interpreted and presented to the consumer - 'consumer' because news media don't sell news to the public, they sell consumers to advertisers.
What Chomsky and Herman are at pains to point out is that this is not a conspiracy theory - no one tells Jeremy Paxman or Andrew Marr what to write or write about - they don't have to be told because they wouldn't have ascended the corporate media ladder if they hadn't already successfully internalised all the underlying assumptions beforehand.
Perhaps where the book falls down is that it is a product of its time: many of the key case studies have been drawn from the 1980s, such as the difference in how the media presented pro-democracy revolutions in Eastern Europe (they supported them as the pro-democracy movement opposed an Official Enemy of the United States, the victims of the Soviet army (or their proxies) were mourned and the leaders of the revolutions courted) compared to pro-democracy revolutions in Central America (the media opposed them as the dictators who ran countries like El Salvador were by default democrats because the U.S. supported them, the victims in the death-squad democracies were neglected (even if they were American nuns) and the leaders of the pro-democracy revolutions were slandered, misrepresented or simply ignored). However, the lessons that Herman and Chomsky draw out from these studies have ramifications beyond their individual cases and can be readily applied to comparisons betwixt, say, democratic mutterings from the media on Iran or North Korea, compared to their commentary on the same subject on Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
If you are a journalist, student of media or journalism, or simply have an interest in how the news is put together, this book should be your key text.
Devastating critique of the American mass media, 30 Aug 2006
In 'Manufacturing Consent', Herman and Chomsky provide a very powerful analysis of the way in which the 'corporate' media distort the reality of world events. The pair are +not+ conspiracy therorists, a label they are often dismissed with, but rather posit a number of ways in which journalists and editors unconsciously but inevitably serve the interests of those in power. The model of the media they present is supported by an overwhelming volume of citations, often from declassified government documents, and this characteristic rigor of research seems to leave very little room in which their opponents might manoeuver. However, these opponents have the power of repetition, and unfortunately this wins over reason and evidence almost every time; hence the bizarre beliefs of much of the Amerrican public.
The 'Propoganda Model' (PM) of the mass media posits five 'filters' which serve to emphasize those elements of the news favourable to the American elite (i.e. the goverment and the corporate interests that it serves), and edit out those that show it in a bad light. These are: "(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit-orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by goverment, business, and 'experts' funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) 'flak' as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) 'anticommunism' as a national religion and control mechanism." In the first two chapters, the authors expound the model that arises from these premises. In the remaing chapters they examine a number of case studies, including examples from Central America and Indochina, comparing the written records of the time - e.g. CIA reports, NGO investigations, foreign media sources - with the reports that appeared in the American press and television. These data (often quantifiable things such as column inches or number of front page articles) fit with convincing accuracy the predictions of the PM.
The presentation of the book is scientific in style: a hypothesis is suggested, and (overwhelming) evidence to support it is cited. These citations are what gives the PM its avantage over its rival model (i.e. that the media are agressive and noble seekers of the truth, who know no boundaries). As I said in the introduction, this rival model's persuasiveness lies only in the frequency with which it is repeated or implied. Of course the same could be said for the belief that the earth is flat; we have come to accept (or at least so we claim) that if we are given evidence that a conventional belief is flawed, we should reject it. This book, with its huge body of objective evidence, constitutes insurmountable proof that this rival theory is indeed fatally flawed, and should therefore be abandoned. The facts that this remains unacknowledged, and that the book's authors are patronised, fit perfectly the predictions of the PM.
I strongly recommend that you read this book: if you do so with an open mind, it will deepen your understanding, or shatter your illusions, depending on your current standpoint. However, for those falling into the latter category, i.e. those largely unfamiliar with Chomsky's thinking, I would recommend that you start out (as I did) with 'Understanding Power', which is somewhat boader in scope, dealing in addition with aspects of society other than the media. For those interested in how the British media compare with the American, the editors of 'medialens.org' have just produced a book called 'Guardians of Power' which I believe applies the PM to Britain, though I am yet to read it. Please do give 'Manufacturing Consent' a try; it is a true mile-stone in twentieth century thought, picking up with passion where Orwell left off.
how the media filters news, 24 Feb 2006
this book is the most difficult chomsky book i have ever read.it is the first serious attempt to show how biased our so called independent media is.it shows by using well known news events how different organizations have used the same story and come up with different conclusions.the media like any political organisation practices self censorship,it's interesting to see what the media leaves out of it's reporting.after reading this book you will develop a healthy scepticism about what you hear or read in the media.the media certainly knows manipulate facts to fit any view they like to promote.after reading this book i have a very dim view of so called media
Disturbing account of events, 31 Dec 2007
I still remember seeing the twin towers collapse and could not help but think that there was something not quite right and this book merely confirmed my fears.
This book is excellently written in a concise and structured manner. It gives evidence, hipothetical accounts of what may have gone wrong and why it went wrong.
Would recommend also to those who enjoy reading "Conspiracy Theory" books.
Good book, some dubious elements, 05 Jul 2007
I first read this book after having been involved with the 9/11 Truth Movement for a long time. David Ray Griffin provides a lot of solid evidence that the United States government was complicit in the attacks, while not explicitly saying this is what happened. His book provokes you into critically analysing the events of that day for yourself instead of relying on the 9/11 Commission Whitewash.
There are some things I disagree with, such as Griffin's contention that whatever hit the Pentagon was not flight 77, but overall this is a good book. I recommend it.
Withering deconstruction of the official myth, 23 Jun 2007
On its own, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 presents a very convincing case that the official version of events regarding the 9/11 attacks is, to put it bluntly, a pack of lies. Dispassionately and with a total lack of histrionics, David Ray Griffin makes a case which I guarantee you will find hard to argue with. When read in conjunction with Griffin's related work, The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, the impression one is left with is that democracy no longer exists in the USA.
Ask yourself one question; how big a conspiracy are we facing, when a ostensibly democratic government could engineer a diabolically ingenious event such as 9/11 in order to give it the green light to wage endless wars of imperialistic aggression against whomsoever it wishes, and at the same time to gain the backing of official institutions, media and foreign governments, whilst ensuring its members make a nice fat profit into the bargain? Just how far, and how high, has the corruption spread?
The answer to that question is, as far as it possibly can. Any system which is corrupt at the top has to be, by its very nature, corrupt all the way up its hierarchy. As highlighted by David Ray Griffin, and without even examining any of the reams of other evidence that exists, far from being a democratically elected President, George W. Bush is an idiotic, despotic figurehead who was selected to advance a New World Order agenda of global domination in the hands of a super-rich elite who have, are, and will continue to, treat the human race like a huge herd of wealth-generating cattle.
The events of 9/11, when followed to their logical conclusion, suggest the existence of an agenda which is frightening in the extreme, and paint a bleak picture for the future of large numbers of the human race. Anyone who has done any additional research into the New World Order will know that mass depopulation of Planet Earth (from 6.5 billion to about 2 billion) is part of their plan, and 9/11 is one of the events which (they hope) will help them achieve their goals. To help prevent this agenda from reaching its conclusion it is essential to understand the real truth behind 9/11, and in this regard David Ray Griffin's work is almost second to none.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, at the 1991 Bilderbergers meeting in Baden-Baden.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover.
Facts cannot be denied !, 28 Feb 2007
Everyone should read this well researched book, I am convinced by it & now believe the events were carefully [ but badly ] stage managed.
Anyone not convinced by it is surely the conspiracy theorist.
Why is it that people who question & dont take things at face value are always considered to be nuts ?
It's the people who do ask difficult questions & demand more information such as professor David Ray Griffin , who will help us find the truth.
I thank him for his work on this, but do worry about his safety with the ' dark forces '.
More such eminent thinkers are now asking for an enquiry , so hopefully there will be one . Let's hope the powers that be will not think they can get away with a 'whitewash ' because we will not allow them to get away with it.
Please read it your money will be well spent on the now historical facts of 9/11.
An outstanding introduction to revisionist 911 history, 17 Feb 2007
David Ray Griffin's book is a consumate presentation of most of the "hiccoughs" in the official theory concerning the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks. His style is terse, transparent, and thought-provoking where it is not convincing. I have read the second edition, and it really is an improvement--each chapter concludes with a small section on new perspectives since the original version, and the long "Afterword" functions as a rhetorical capstone for the entire work. This book is fairly fast-paced and contains no "original" research, but nevertheless is responsibly documented. In spite of my unreserved recommendation of this book, I would strongly recommend any newbies to view the film "Loose Change" before reading it to help establish a map of the territory. Griffin's stated goal was to present a document that American lawmakers can grasp so as to incite an open and thorough investigation into the trigger for the never-ending war on terror. Respect for our brave citizens who are risking and losing their lives in this conflict demands nothing less.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
If you only read one book this year...make it this one., 07 Apr 2008
A devastating and enlightening critique of US foreign policy and the media complicit in its crimes. If you only read one Chomsky book, make it this one. It should be required reading on every media/politics/sociology course. The analysis is compelling and the conclusion shocking. The mainstream media cannot be trusted - seekers of truth must look elsewhere. It remains as relevant today as it's ever been. Enjoy.
Reductionists probably won't understand, 07 Aug 2007
Chomsky and Herman's analysis shows exactly how a series of filters working within a freeish capital market can lead to an institutional bias. Contrary to the opinion mentioned in "A shallow and illiberal piece of conspiracy-mongering" review above, this shows that there is no conspiracy. In actual fact for the filters to work otherwise would require a consistent left wing bias by individuals acting against their interests, education and background.
The best book available on the mainstream mass media, 13 Feb 2007
Manufacturing Consent is Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's devastating critique of a complacent mainstream mass media. The book analyses prominent stories from the 1980s and samples much commentary from newspapers such as the New York Times and finds a disturbing consensus that permeates through the media market, a market that promotes itself to the public as being open, unbiased, independent of and fiercely critical of, establishment power.
The truth, according to Herman and Chomsky, is that due to a convergence of several key factors such as newspaper ownership patterns, the huge influence of advertising and what the media call 'credible sources of news', the mainstream mass media presents a highly distorted impression of what is and isn't news and how that news is selectively framed, interpreted and presented to the consumer - 'consumer' because news media don't sell news to the public, they sell consumers to advertisers.
What Chomsky and Herman are at pains to point out is that this is not a conspiracy theory - no one tells Jeremy Paxman or Andrew Marr what to write or write about - they don't have to be told because they wouldn't have ascended the corporate media ladder if they hadn't already successfully internalised all the underlying assumptions beforehand.
Perhaps where the book falls down is that it is a product of its time: many of the key case studies have been drawn from the 1980s, such as the difference in how the media presented pro-democracy revolutions in Eastern Europe (they supported them as the pro-democracy movement opposed an Official Enemy of the United States, the victims of the Soviet army (or their proxies) were mourned and the leaders of the revolutions courted) compared to pro-democracy revolutions in Central America (the media opposed them as the dictators who ran countries like El Salvador were by default democrats because the U.S. supported them, the victims in the death-squad democracies were neglected (even if they were American nuns) and the leaders of the pro-democracy revolutions were slandered, misrepresented or simply ignored). However, the lessons that Herman and Chomsky draw out from these studies have ramifications beyond their individual cases and can be readily applied to comparisons betwixt, say, democratic mutterings from the media on Iran or North Korea, compared to their commentary on the same subject on Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
If you are a journalist, student of media or journalism, or simply have an interest in how the news is put together, this book should be your key text.
Devastating critique of the American mass media, 30 Aug 2006
In 'Manufacturing Consent', Herman and Chomsky provide a very powerful analysis of the way in which the 'corporate' media distort the reality of world events. The pair are +not+ conspiracy therorists, a label they are often dismissed with, but rather posit a number of ways in which journalists and editors unconsciously but inevitably serve the interests of those in power. The model of the media they present is supported by an overwhelming volume of citations, often from declassified government documents, and this characteristic rigor of research seems to leave very little room in which their opponents might manoeuver. However, these opponents have the power of repetition, and unfortunately this wins over reason and evidence almost every time; hence the bizarre beliefs of much of the Amerrican public.
The 'Propoganda Model' (PM) of the mass media posits five 'filters' which serve to emphasize those elements of the news favourable to the American elite (i.e. the goverment and the corporate interests that it serves), and edit out those that show it in a bad light. These are: "(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit-orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by goverment, business, and 'experts' funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) 'flak' as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) 'anticommunism' as a national religion and control mechanism." In the first two chapters, the authors expound the model that arises from these premises. In the remaing chapters they examine a number of case studies, including examples from Central America and Indochina, comparing the written records of the time - e.g. CIA reports, NGO investigations, foreign media sources - with the reports that appeared in the American press and television. These data (often quantifiable things such as column inches or number of front page articles) fit with convincing accuracy the predictions of the PM.
The presentation of the book is scientific in style: a hypothesis is suggested, and (overwhelming) evidence to support it is cited. These citations are what gives the PM its avantage over its rival model (i.e. that the media are agressive and noble seekers of the truth, who know no boundaries). As I said in the introduction, this rival model's persuasiveness lies only in the frequency with which it is repeated or implied. Of course the same could be said for the belief that the earth is flat; we have come to accept (or at least so we claim) that if we are given evidence that a conventional belief is flawed, we should reject it. This book, with its huge body of objective evidence, constitutes insurmountable proof that this rival theory is indeed fatally flawed, and should therefore be abandoned. The facts that this remains unacknowledged, and that the book's authors are patronised, fit perfectly the predictions of the PM.
I strongly recommend that you read this book: if you do so with an open mind, it will deepen your understanding, or shatter your illusions, depending on your current standpoint. However, for those falling into the latter category, i.e. those largely unfamiliar with Chomsky's thinking, I would recommend that you start out (as I did) with 'Understanding Power', which is somewhat boader in scope, dealing in addition with aspects of society other than the media. For those interested in how the British media compare with the American, the editors of 'medialens.org' have just produced a book called 'Guardians of Power' which I believe applies the PM to Britain, though I am yet to read it. Please do give 'Manufacturing Consent' a try; it is a true mile-stone in twentieth century thought, picking up with passion where Orwell left off.
how the media filters news, 24 Feb 2006
this book is the most difficult chomsky book i have ever read.it is the first serious attempt to show how biased our so called independent media is.it shows by using well known news events how different organizations have used the same story and come up with different conclusions.the media like any political organisation practices self censorship,it's interesting to see what the media leaves out of it's reporting.after reading this book you will develop a healthy scepticism about what you hear or read in the media.the media certainly knows manipulate facts to fit any view they like to promote.after reading this book i have a very dim view of so called media
Disturbing account of events, 31 Dec 2007
I still remember seeing the twin towers collapse and could not help but think that there was something not quite right and this book merely confirmed my fears.
This book is excellently written in a concise and structured manner. It gives evidence, hipothetical accounts of what may have gone wrong and why it went wrong.
Would recommend also to those who enjoy reading "Conspiracy Theory" books.
Good book, some dubious elements, 05 Jul 2007
I first read this book after having been involved with the 9/11 Truth Movement for a long time. David Ray Griffin provides a lot of solid evidence that the United States government was complicit in the attacks, while not explicitly saying this is what happened. His book provokes you into critically analysing the events of that day for yourself instead of relying on the 9/11 Commission Whitewash.
There are some things I disagree with, such as Griffin's contention that whatever hit the Pentagon was not flight 77, but overall this is a good book. I recommend it.
Withering deconstruction of the official myth, 23 Jun 2007
On its own, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 presents a very convincing case that the official version of events regarding the 9/11 attacks is, to put it bluntly, a pack of lies. Dispassionately and with a total lack of histrionics, David Ray Griffin makes a case which I guarantee you will find hard to argue with. When read in conjunction with Griffin's related work, The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, the impression one is left with is that democracy no longer exists in the USA.
Ask yourself one question; how big a conspiracy are we facing, when a ostensibly democratic government could engineer a diabolically ingenious event such as 9/11 in order to give it the green light to wage endless wars of imperialistic aggression against whomsoever it wishes, and at the same time to gain the backing of official institutions, media and foreign governments, whilst ensuring its members make a nice fat profit into the bargain? Just how far, and how high, has the corruption spread?
The answer to that question is, as far as it possibly can. Any system which is corrupt at the top has to be, by its very nature, corrupt all the way up its hierarchy. As highlighted by David Ray Griffin, and without even examining any of the reams of other evidence that exists, far from being a democratically elected President, George W. Bush is an idiotic, despotic figurehead who was selected to advance a New World Order agenda of global domination in the hands of a super-rich elite who have, are, and will continue to, treat the human race like a huge herd of wealth-generating cattle.
The events of 9/11, when followed to their logical conclusion, suggest the existence of an agenda which is frightening in the extreme, and paint a bleak picture for the future of large numbers of the human race. Anyone who has done any additional research into the New World Order will know that mass depopulation of Planet Earth (from 6.5 billion to about 2 billion) is part of their plan, and 9/11 is one of the events which (they hope) will help them achieve their goals. To help prevent this agenda from reaching its conclusion it is essential to understand the real truth behind 9/11, and in this regard David Ray Griffin's work is almost second to none.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, at the 1991 Bilderbergers meeting in Baden-Baden.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover.
Facts cannot be denied !, 28 Feb 2007
Everyone should read this well researched book, I am convinced by it & now believe the events were carefully [ but badly ] stage managed.
Anyone not convinced by it is surely the conspiracy theorist.
Why is it that people who question & dont take things at face value are always considered to be nuts ?
It's the people who do ask difficult questions & demand more information such as professor David Ray Griffin , who will help us find the truth.
I thank him for his work on this, but do worry about his safety with the ' dark forces '.
More such eminent thinkers are now asking for an enquiry , so hopefully there will be one . Let's hope the powers that be will not think they can get away with a 'whitewash ' because we will not allow them to get away with it.
Please read it your money will be well spent on the now historical facts of 9/11.
An outstanding introduction to revisionist 911 history, 17 Feb 2007
David Ray Griffin's book is a consumate presentation of most of the "hiccoughs" in the official theory concerning the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks. His style is terse, transparent, and thought-provoking where it is not convincing. I have read the second edition, and it really is an improvement--each chapter concludes with a small section on new perspectives since the original version, and the long "Afterword" functions as a rhetorical capstone for the entire work. This book is fairly fast-paced and contains no "original" research, but nevertheless is responsibly documented. In spite of my unreserved recommendation of this book, I would strongly recommend any newbies to view the film "Loose Change" before reading it to help establish a map of the territory. Griffin's stated goal was to present a document that American lawmakers can grasp so as to incite an open and thorough investigation into the trigger for the never-ending war on terror. Respect for our brave citizens who are risking and losing their lives in this conflict demands nothing less.
Massive evidence, 08 Nov 2008
D.R. Griffin's second book on the 9/11 massacre is a terribly skilled comment on his first version, with some rectifications and some meticulous unraveling of controversial statements, timings and physical processes.
His overall picture stands more firmly than ever `that every dimension of the official account is false beyond reasonable doubt.' Hereafter, a few crucial points:
- the free vertical fall of the 3 WTC towers (of which one was not hit by a plane) makes a rather cynical joke of the NIST report. Controlled demolition is the only plausible explanation.
- the official version of the fact that the airplanes could not be scrambled doesn't stand a close examination of all the timings involved. A stand down order explains everything.
- the Pentagon could not have been hit by a plane, unless all its debris should have evaporated after the impact. A missile attack is more plausible.
- the identity of the hijackers, if any, is extremely obscure. For D.R. Griffin, much of the evidence that there were hijackers on the planes dissipates upon close examination. The planes could have been flown by remote control. See M.H. Gaffey's book `The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America'.
- the true identity of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is anything but clear.
- cell phone calls could not be made from inside the airplanes.
- a close examination of the official 9/11 Commission Report shows that all controversial points were omitted or the subject of biased interpretations.
It all insinuates that all the deadly attacks were an inside job.
But why? They served as an excuse to wage war. D.R. Griffin: 'Members of the Bush-Cheney administration planned prior to 9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, after which they hoped to attack five other countries. The commission shielded its readers from evidence that this administration include people with an even more murderous ideology.'
In the meantime, the public media continue to be completely gagged. A rather menacing silence is sometimes overshadowing the TV and radio studios and stations.
D.R. Griffin incriminates nobody. All he wants is a new and independent investigation to discover the truth.
This book with its perfect index and bibliography is a must read for all those interested in the 9/11 massacre and for all those who want to understand the world we live in.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
If you only read one book this year...make it this one., 07 Apr 2008
A devastating and enlightening critique of US foreign policy and the media complicit in its crimes. If you only read one Chomsky book, make it this one. It should be required reading on every media/politics/sociology course. The analysis is compelling and the conclusion shocking. The mainstream media cannot be trusted - seekers of truth must look elsewhere. It remains as relevant today as it's ever been. Enjoy.
Reductionists probably won't understand, 07 Aug 2007
Chomsky and Herman's analysis shows exactly how a series of filters working within a freeish capital market can lead to an institutional bias. Contrary to the opinion mentioned in "A shallow and illiberal piece of conspiracy-mongering" review above, this shows that there is no conspiracy. In actual fact for the filters to work otherwise would require a consistent left wing bias by individuals acting against their interests, education and background.
The best book available on the mainstream mass media, 13 Feb 2007
Manufacturing Consent is Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's devastating critique of a complacent mainstream mass media. The book analyses prominent stories from the 1980s and samples much commentary from newspapers such as the New York Times and finds a disturbing consensus that permeates through the media market, a market that promotes itself to the public as being open, unbiased, independent of and fiercely critical of, establishment power.
The truth, according to Herman and Chomsky, is that due to a convergence of several key factors such as newspaper ownership patterns, the huge influence of advertising and what the media call 'credible sources of news', the mainstream mass media presents a highly distorted impression of what is and isn't news and how that news is selectively framed, interpreted and presented to the consumer - 'consumer' because news media don't sell news to the public, they sell consumers to advertisers.
What Chomsky and Herman are at pains to point out is that this is not a conspiracy theory - no one tells Jeremy Paxman or Andrew Marr what to write or write about - they don't have to be told because they wouldn't have ascended the corporate media ladder if they hadn't already successfully internalised all the underlying assumptions beforehand.
Perhaps where the book falls down is that it is a product of its time: many of the key case studies have been drawn from the 1980s, such as the difference in how the media presented pro-democracy revolutions in Eastern Europe (they supported them as the pro-democracy movement opposed an Official Enemy of the United States, the victims of the Soviet army (or their proxies) were mourned and the leaders of the revolutions courted) compared to pro-democracy revolutions in Central America (the media opposed them as the dictators who ran countries like El Salvador were by default democrats because the U.S. supported them, the victims in the death-squad democracies were neglected (even if they were American nuns) and the leaders of the pro-democracy revolutions were slandered, misrepresented or simply ignored). However, the lessons that Herman and Chomsky draw out from these studies have ramifications beyond their individual cases and can be readily applied to comparisons betwixt, say, democratic mutterings from the media on Iran or North Korea, compared to their commentary on the same subject on Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
If you are a journalist, student of media or journalism, or simply have an interest in how the news is put together, this book should be your key text.
Devastating critique of the American mass media, 30 Aug 2006
In 'Manufacturing Consent', Herman and Chomsky provide a very powerful analysis of the way in which the 'corporate' media distort the reality of world events. The pair are +not+ conspiracy therorists, a label they are often dismissed with, but rather posit a number of ways in which journalists and editors unconsciously but inevitably serve the interests of those in power. The model of the media they present is supported by an overwhelming volume of citations, often from declassified government documents, and this characteristic rigor of research seems to leave very little room in which their opponents might manoeuver. However, these opponents have the power of repetition, and unfortunately this wins over reason and evidence almost every time; hence the bizarre beliefs of much of the Amerrican public.
The 'Propoganda Model' (PM) of the mass media posits five 'filters' which serve to emphasize those elements of the news favourable to the American elite (i.e. the goverment and the corporate interests that it serves), and edit out those that show it in a bad light. These are: "(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit-orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by goverment, business, and 'experts' funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) 'flak' as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) 'anticommunism' as a national religion and control mechanism." In the first two chapters, the authors expound the model that arises from these premises. In the remaing chapters they examine a number of case studies, including examples from Central America and Indochina, comparing the written records of the time - e.g. CIA reports, NGO investigations, foreign media sources - with the reports that appeared in the American press and television. These data (often quantifiable things such as column inches or number of front page articles) fit with convincing accuracy the predictions of the PM.
The presentation of the book is scientific in style: a hypothesis is suggested, and (overwhelming) evidence to support it is cited. These citations are what gives the PM its avantage over its rival model (i.e. that the media are agressive and noble seekers of the truth, who know no boundaries). As I said in the introduction, this rival model's persuasiveness lies only in the frequency with which it is repeated or implied. Of course the same could be said for the belief that the earth is flat; we have come to accept (or at least so we claim) that if we are given evidence that a conventional belief is flawed, we should reject it. This book, with its huge body of objective evidence, constitutes insurmountable proof that this rival theory is indeed fatally flawed, and should therefore be abandoned. The facts that this remains unacknowledged, and that the book's authors are patronised, fit perfectly the predictions of the PM.
I strongly recommend that you read this book: if you do so with an open mind, it will deepen your understanding, or shatter your illusions, depending on your current standpoint. However, for those falling into the latter category, i.e. those largely unfamiliar with Chomsky's thinking, I would recommend that you start out (as I did) with 'Understanding Power', which is somewhat boader in scope, dealing in addition with aspects of society other than the media. For those interested in how the British media compare with the American, the editors of 'medialens.org' have just produced a book called 'Guardians of Power' which I believe applies the PM to Britain, though I am yet to read it. Please do give 'Manufacturing Consent' a try; it is a true mile-stone in twentieth century thought, picking up with passion where Orwell left off.
how the media filters news, 24 Feb 2006
this book is the most difficult chomsky book i have ever read.it is the first serious attempt to show how biased our so called independent media is.it shows by using well known news events how different organizations have used the same story and come up with different conclusions.the media like any political organisation practices self censorship,it's interesting to see what the media leaves out of it's reporting.after reading this book you will develop a healthy scepticism about what you hear or read in the media.the media certainly knows manipulate facts to fit any view they like to promote.after reading this book i have a very dim view of so called media
Disturbing account of events, 31 Dec 2007
I still remember seeing the twin towers collapse and could not help but think that there was something not quite right and this book merely confirmed my fears.
This book is excellently written in a concise and structured manner. It gives evidence, hipothetical accounts of what may have gone wrong and why it went wrong.
Would recommend also to those who enjoy reading "Conspiracy Theory" books.
Good book, some dubious elements, 05 Jul 2007
I first read this book after having been involved with the 9/11 Truth Movement for a long time. David Ray Griffin provides a lot of solid evidence that the United States government was complicit in the attacks, while not explicitly saying this is what happened. His book provokes you into critically analysing the events of that day for yourself instead of relying on the 9/11 Commission Whitewash.
There are some things I disagree with, such as Griffin's contention that whatever hit the Pentagon was not flight 77, but overall this is a good book. I recommend it.
Withering deconstruction of the official myth, 23 Jun 2007
On its own, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 presents a very convincing case that the official version of events regarding the 9/11 attacks is, to put it bluntly, a pack of lies. Dispassionately and with a total lack of histrionics, David Ray Griffin makes a case which I guarantee you will find hard to argue with. When read in conjunction with Griffin's related work, The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, the impression one is left with is that democracy no longer exists in the USA.
Ask yourself one question; how big a conspiracy are we facing, when a ostensibly democratic government could engineer a diabolically ingenious event such as 9/11 in order to give it the green light to wage endless wars of imperialistic aggression against whomsoever it wishes, and at the same time to gain the backing of official institutions, media and foreign governments, whilst ensuring its members make a nice fat profit into the bargain? Just how far, and how high, has the corruption spread?
The answer to that question is, as far as it possibly can. Any system which is corrupt at the top has to be, by its very nature, corrupt all the way up its hierarchy. As highlighted by David Ray Griffin, and without even examining any of the reams of other evidence that exists, far from being a democratically elected President, George W. Bush is an idiotic, despotic figurehead who was selected to advance a New World Order agenda of global domination in the hands of a super-rich elite who have, are, and will continue to, treat the human race like a huge herd of wealth-generating cattle.
The events of 9/11, when followed to their logical conclusion, suggest the existence of an agenda which is frightening in the extreme, and paint a bleak picture for the future of large numbers of the human race. Anyone who has done any additional research into the New World Order will know that mass depopulation of Planet Earth (from 6.5 billion to about 2 billion) is part of their plan, and 9/11 is one of the events which (they hope) will help them achieve their goals. To help prevent this agenda from reaching its conclusion it is essential to understand the real truth behind 9/11, and in this regard David Ray Griffin's work is almost second to none.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, at the 1991 Bilderbergers meeting in Baden-Baden.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover.
Facts cannot be denied !, 28 Feb 2007
Everyone should read this well researched book, I am convinced by it & now believe the events were carefully [ but badly ] stage managed.
Anyone not convinced by it is surely the conspiracy theorist.
Why is it that people who question & dont take things at face value are always considered to be nuts ?
It's the people who do ask difficult questions & demand more information such as professor David Ray Griffin , who will help us find the truth.
I thank him for his work on this, but do worry about his safety with the ' dark forces '.
More such eminent thinkers are now asking for an enquiry , so hopefully there will be one . Let's hope the powers that be will not think they can get away with a 'whitewash ' because we will not allow them to get away with it.
Please read it your money will be well spent on the now historical facts of 9/11.
An outstanding introduction to revisionist 911 history, 17 Feb 2007
David Ray Griffin's book is a consumate presentation of most of the "hiccoughs" in the official theory concerning the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks. His style is terse, transparent, and thought-provoking where it is not convincing. I have read the second edition, and it really is an improvement--each chapter concludes with a small section on new perspectives since the original version, and the long "Afterword" functions as a rhetorical capstone for the entire work. This book is fairly fast-paced and contains no "original" research, but nevertheless is responsibly documented. In spite of my unreserved recommendation of this book, I would strongly recommend any newbies to view the film "Loose Change" before reading it to help establish a map of the territory. Griffin's stated goal was to present a document that American lawmakers can grasp so as to incite an open and thorough investigation into the trigger for the never-ending war on terror. Respect for our brave citizens who are risking and losing their lives in this conflict demands nothing less.
Massive evidence, 08 Nov 2008
D.R. Griffin's second book on the 9/11 massacre is a terribly skilled comment on his first version, with some rectifications and some meticulous unraveling of controversial statements, timings and physical processes.
His overall picture stands more firmly than ever `that every dimension of the official account is false beyond reasonable doubt.' Hereafter, a few crucial points:
- the free vertical fall of the 3 WTC towers (of which one was not hit by a plane) makes a rather cynical joke of the NIST report. Controlled demolition is the only plausible explanation.
- the official version of the fact that the airplanes could not be scrambled doesn't stand a close examination of all the timings involved. A stand down order explains everything.
- the Pentagon could not have been hit by a plane, unless all its debris should have evaporated after the impact. A missile attack is more plausible.
- the identity of the hijackers, if any, is extremely obscure. For D.R. Griffin, much of the evidence that there were hijackers on the planes dissipates upon close examination. The planes could have been flown by remote control. See M.H. Gaffey's book `The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America'.
- the true identity of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is anything but clear.
- cell phone calls could not be made from inside the airplanes.
- a close examination of the official 9/11 Commission Report shows that all controversial points were omitted or the subject of biased interpretations.
It all insinuates that all the deadly attacks were an inside job.
But why? They served as an excuse to wage war. D.R. Griffin: 'Members of the Bush-Cheney administration planned prior to 9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, after which they hoped to attack five other countries. The commission shielded its readers from evidence that this administration include people with an even more murderous ideology.'
In the meantime, the public media continue to be completely gagged. A rather menacing silence is sometimes overshadowing the TV and radio studios and stations.
D.R. Griffin incriminates nobody. All he wants is a new and independent investigation to discover the truth.
This book with its perfect index and bibliography is a must read for all those interested in the 9/11 massacre and for all those who want to understand the world we live in.
Still making a compelling argument for an independent investigation, 22 Feb 2008
Professor David Ray Griffin's first book on the atrocity of 11th September, 2001, was named The New Pearl Harbor. This was a clear synthesis of other people's research, conveniently assembled in one book, articulately written and refreshingly free of hyperbole and foaming-at-the-mouth 'anti-government' hysteria. Written before the Independent 9/11 Commission published its findings, The New Pearl Harbor was in some way a plea not to ignore difficult and controversial evidence.
Griffin's sequel, was a book that responded to the official report on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, analysed how the Independent Commission handled this important but neglected evidence and also looked at just how independent this investigation actually was. From the title, we can tell that Griffin was distinctly unimpressed, articulating the anger and disappointment expressed by some of the victims families themselves.
A few books later, Griffin has produced his most comprehensive work yet: Debunking 9/11 Debunking (a terrible title indeed). This book systematically dismantles the work that has been produced by the apologists for the 9/11 Commission and its Official Conspiracy Theory. The main offenders here are Vanity Fair (which was instrumental in promoting the NORAD tapes, which became the basis for the film United 93), the book Without Precedent, written by the Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas H. Keen and Lee H. Hamilton respectively), the NIST report on the destruction of the World Trade Center and finally Popular Mechanics book, Debunking 9/11 Myths. Griffin also looks at the mostly unconvincing arguments put forth by those from the political left of the spectrum, who argue that the whole '9/11 Truth Movement' is a dangerous diversion from more important areas of popular struggle.
It would be redundant, here, to explain Griffin's arguments as to why each one of the pieces put forth by defenders of the Bush administration's position on 9/11 fails to encompass all of the available facts. Griffin calmly takes apart and deconstructs each argument. This is not the work an academic theologian arguing that he understands engineering, construction, or military and defense issues better than those who have spent their entire professional careers within the respective areas of the 9/11 story - Griffin solidly supports his contentions with readily source-able information from Admirals and Generals, pilots, intelligence officials and physicists, engineers and firefighters, mainstream news reports and independent studies.
Debunking 9/11 Debunking is an indispensable guide to the latest research on 9/11. It methodically demonstrates that, despite the best pretences of the liberal-conservative consensus, the alternative theory is at present, the only one that encompasses the majority of the available facts. When ideology is put to one side and a cold, hard look is taken at the evidence, the official version of events simply lacks credibility, as uncomfortable as that may seem. If nothing else, Griffin's book is a reminder that the more evidence uncovered around the awful events of 11th September, 2001, the more questions that are raised and as a result, we need most what we haven't yet got: a truly independent, international investigation.
An alternative to "Groupthink", 11 Feb 2008
Like everyone else I was taken in by the events of the day: the shock and awe. Looking back though it is very strange: why did those towers EXPLODE? where were the fighter jets? How come they were experts in TV studios ready to give explanations on who was behind the attacks while the attacks were happening? Even people on the street ready to be interviewed with a complete story of how and why the towers collapsed? How come people knew in advance of the attacks and conducted insider trading? Immediately after 9/11 there was the Anthrax attacks? (Remember those?)
Loads of questions...
And then there was matters that was hushed up: the biggest being the collapse of World Trade Center 7 - this was a huge building. Small compared to the twin towers but would be huge in any other city except New York: 47 stories. Untouched by aircraft it collapsed in 6.5 seconds in what looks like a perfect controlled demolition. No live TV cameras showed it coming down and as far as I can tell, the few videos of it coming down have never shown on BBC1 or major TV channels! Why not? Shouldn't we at least be worried by skyscraper safety?
So let's re-cap:
Advance warning of the event: widespread.
Fires exploding skyscrapers? Impossible.
Towers collapsing at free fall speeds: Impossible.
Dust clouds and Molten steel at ground zero: Not possible from a fire.
4 airliners over 4 hours not being intercepted by jet fighters: Highly improbable.
Rumsfold announces $2.2 TRILLION overspend on September 10th and the only department destroyed at the Pentagon on the 11th September are the AUDITORS looking at the overspend: highly suspicious!!!
From there explore all the evidence: all the craziness of that day and decide: how could this not be an inside job? Like a magic trick, the art is in the preparation... Building rigged for demolition? They must have needed someone on the inside for that? I wonder who they could get? (Google it: the answer will surprise!) The Bush Administration wanted a "New Pearl Harbor" (See Program for a New American Century) and they got it on 9/11.
Why? Throughout history, when a country goes to war, the aggressor first blames its victim for some indiscretion. The Bush Administration needed a b-i-g justification for its war in Afghanistan and Iraq and 9/11 provided that justification!
I am happy to be proven wrong on these assertions. The only way to do it is to have a new investigation into 9/11 just as the relatives of the victims of 9/11 are saying in "9/11 Press for Truth".
An Extraordinary Book on Extraordinary Events., 03 Jan 2008
The critical, formative event of this decade was 9-11, a term which actually refers to a series of events that took place on September 11th, 2001 in the United States of America. Few other events have had such an impact on public consciousness; none have been so thoroughly exploited by governments. To this day, it serves as the justification for a rash of policies from the declaration of a 'war on terror' to the expansion of executive powers and the disregard of human rights. Its shadow still stands over political discourse in more than one nation, and its echoes can still be heard whenever an official speaks about terrorism. Yet for an event of such massive importance, its actual details have received little attention and even less scrutiny in the mainstream media.
Fortunately, those outside the mainstream have not neglected it, and step-by-step, detail-by-detail, they have uncovered a wealth of evidence that the official U.S. government explanation for what transpired on that day is untenable. They have gone further and constructed alternative accounts of what happened - accounts which seriously implicate the authorities in Washington. And for attempting to discover and expose the truth about these terrible events, they have been rewarded with abuse, ridicule, slander, scorn and apathy. Such is the gratitude of the American public.
Nonetheless, the 9-11 truth movement soldiers on and has gained an increasing number of adherents worldwide. In response to this trend, numerous publications emerged to bolster Washington's fairy-tales about evil Arab terrorists massacring innocent American citizens one day in September. The prestige of the organizations behind these publications, (the National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] and Popular Mechanics magazine among others,) tended to obscure their shoddy theories regarding 9-11 and their even more dubious attempts to debunk the alternative explanations. Fortunately, one of the heroes of the 9-11 truth movement - Professor David Ray Griffin of Claremont Graduate University, has risen to the challenge of these '9-11 debunkers' and demolished their accounts with skill and style. This book is that refutation - a brilliant treatise combining strong arguments, clear analyses and witty commentaries on a subject that is both difficult and disturbing.
After a solid introduction which establishes the intellectual groundwork for what follows, Professor Griffin sets about shattering four defences of the official theory in the four parts of his book. The first is the 9-11 Commission Report (which the professor has already refuted in an earlier work) where Dr. Griffin deals with one of the crucial mysteries of 9-11: the failure to intercept the hijacked planes. Suffice to say, he demonstrates that the most plausible explanation is that someone in a position of authority gave a stand-down order.
The emeritus professor then proceeds to show that a book brought about by the official heads of the 9-11 Commission - Without Precedent - is guilty of all the flaws that it ascribes to conspiracy theorists. The third section of Debunking 9-11 Debunking challenges the NIST report that attributed the collapse of the towers to jet fuel and aircraft impacts. Professor Griffin demonstrates that this view is scientifically indefensible.
It is the fourth part of this work which is the most crucial for those opposed to the official theory, for it involves countering the most widely publicized '9-11 debunking' account: that of Popular Mechanics magazine, (which later became a book titled Debunking 9-11 Myths.) True to form, our author does not disappoint. After a masterly critique of Senator McCain's foreword, the professor slices apart Popular Mechanics' claims regarding the planes, regarding the demolition of the Twin Towers, regarding WTC Building 7, regarding the Pentagon attack and regarding United Airlines Flight 93. The confutation of the official story is complete.
Professor Griffin's conclusion manifests the qualities that make his tome a pleasure to read: a superb writing style, a highly perceptive view of the entire situation and a polite tone of indomitable confidence that befits a scholar who knows his subject. Upon finishing his treatise, one is wont to exclaim, "A man! And I had expected only an American!" Indeed, Debunking 9-11 Debunking is an extraordinary book on an extraordinary subject by an extraordinary individual.
Popular Mechanics debunked, 13 Nov 2007
David Ray Griffin is no conspiracy theorist. Rather, he sets out clearly how the official myth of 9/11 has been built up and supported by Yellow Journalism. This book is primarily an answer to Popular Mechanics "Debunking 9/11 Myths," but also touches on some other topics.
Griffin shows that all the debunkers have done is set up "straw man" arguments then debunk these.
Griffin shows that the official narrative of 9/11 is false and contains so many contradictions and falshoods that it can not be anything other than a myth. He makes no claims outside of this other than to call for a proper independent investigation in to the attacks of 9/11.
Debunking Debunking 9/11 Debunking, 26 Sep 2007
When I originally sat down to write this review of Griffin's latest book I made the mistake of taking the damn thing seriously and trying to attack it on its own terms. But such are the labyrinthine methods and convoluted reasoning employed I found that I was being lured into a potentially Sisyphean endeavour. An evening spent on the internet googling the subject revealed that there are enough brilliant websites out there that patiently and calmly rebut every point that Griffin and co make (of course there's significantly more that peddle the whole conspiracy thing, but in these mumbo-jumbo ridden times that, sadly, is only to be expected). But I was keen to put up a dissenting review to balance the mainly credulous ones that have previously been posted, so here goes.
From the title you can work out that this book, Griffin's 4th on the subject, is a response to some of the debunking texts that have appeared since the 9/11 conspiracy theories started gaining more attention. His declared intention is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of the debunkers (or `believers', as opposed to `truth seekers' like himself) the evidence in support of the official version of the events of 9/11 is fatally compromised and that the facts indicate that there must be, at least, some degree of governmental complicity in the attacks. To quote: "What could be more fanciful than the official theory, according to which 19 young men, following a plan authorized in Afghanistan, prepared for their operation without being detected by any of our intelligence organizations, defeated the most sophisticated defense system in history, caused the total collapse of three steel-frame high-rise buildings by crashing planes into them, and then crashed another plane into what is surely the most well-defended building on the planet? If such a story hade been taken to Hollywood, would it not likely have been rejected as too fanciful".
Reading between the lines I sense a certain, how can I put it, lack of respect for the abilities of people with brown skin. In effect Griffin's point is that the sheer scale of the attack with its concomitant requirement of long term and sophisticated planning was too great an undertaking for a bunch of cave-dwelling fanatics to have carried out and because the US government did have the resources and means to do so, they must have done it. Indeed al-Qaeda may well have sponsored and undertaken other actions against US institutions and personnel before 9/11, as well as the subsequent bombings in Bali, Madrid and London, but the big one on 9/11 is an all-American terrorist attack and don't you forget it.
I am intrigued by the (almost fanatical) reluctance of the conspiracists to acknowledge the role of militant Islam. It's as if they can't grasp or deal with this aspect and feel more comfortable, bizarrely perhaps more safe, assuming that the traditional enemy, our own untrustworthy governments, are the perpetrators. No paradigm shift needed there. In his earlier book Omissions and Distortions he bluntly states that those who dismiss the official version "may or may not find the history of Osama Bin Laden particularly relevant...but they will...be most focused on events suggestive of complicity within the Bush administration." Because the official version suggests that 9/11 was an al-Qaeda operation, they give it no credence whatsoever, like JFK assassination conspiracists who take it as read that Oswald was innocent and proceed from there.
Employing the same rhetorical devices, specious logic and circular arguments that Griffin accuses the `believers' of, his book is also littered with footnotes, which are intended to give off an aura of academic rigour. But many of the sources are simply other conspiracists who are obviously chosen precisely because they are peddling the same line as Griffin. In many cases the source cited is actually another book by Griffin himself. Other citations are just plain egregious. For example the claims that some of the "alleged" hi-jackers were not dead, hadn't been on any of the planes and were alive and well and living in Morocco (p.127) supposedly backed up by legitimate sources like The Daily Telegraph and the BBC News website are undermined by the fact that subsequent admissions of error by these sources about this matter are not mentioned.
One of his central objections to the official version is the cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7. What exactly his qualifications are for judging the quality of evidence given by technical experts relating to pretty abstruse issues of structural engineering, steel stress, melting temperatures and so on, I don't know. He is after all a professor of Theology, and therefore no more qualified to weigh up such evidence than I am. Yes, he can cite individual experts who dispute the official scenario but unfortunately the weight of professional mainstream opinion is firmly behind the jet fuel, flammable material, weakened steel supports theory and not the planned demolition by explosion scenario. Griffin makes great play that one of the big guns of the truth movement who supports the collapse by demolition theory is an actual proper academic, physicist Steven Jones. I am more inclined to side with the official version experts, particularly as they don't have sidelines of publishing papers, like Jones has, entitled "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America". But then perhaps I'm just biased against theologians.
I have read three of Griffin's books. This will be the last. Griffin is now so mired in the 9/11 truth quagmire that he seems to have lost all perspective and appears to have gone slightly mad. His obsessive, repetitive barrage of facts, speculation and paranoid ramblings, with all the impedimenta of apparent academic practice, creates a self contained and self referential closed system. Like a stalker, his belief system is constructed so that criticism, rather than undermining his arguments, in his mind only serves to strengthen them.
May I recommend as a purge for all this nonsense a read of How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered The World, The Looming Tower and Fiasco. The first as a healthy purgative of satirical common sense, the second to get you to smell the coffee and acknowledge the threat of fanatical religious believers of a different stripe and the last to demonstrate the incompetence of a government which is supposed to have cooked up and carried out this elaborate self inflicted terrorist attack and successfully covered it up. A minor point, but if the government has no qualms about wasting thousands of its own citizens then it would hardly think twice about silencing Griffin who is supposedly exposing their criminal activities.
|
|
|
 |
|
Chinese Propaganda Posters
Usually dispatched within 1-2 business days
*Best price found from Amazon Marketplace seller
|
*Amazon: £4.64
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
If you only read one book this year...make it this one., 07 Apr 2008
A devastating and enlightening critique of US foreign policy and the media complicit in its crimes. If you only read one Chomsky book, make it this one. It should be required reading on every media/politics/sociology course. The analysis is compelling and the conclusion shocking. The mainstream media cannot be trusted - seekers of truth must look elsewhere. It remains as relevant today as it's ever been. Enjoy.
Reductionists probably won't understand, 07 Aug 2007
Chomsky and Herman's analysis shows exactly how a series of filters working within a freeish capital market can lead to an institutional bias. Contrary to the opinion mentioned in "A shallow and illiberal piece of conspiracy-mongering" review above, this shows that there is no conspiracy. In actual fact for the filters to work otherwise would require a consistent left wing bias by individuals acting against their interests, education and background.
The best book available on the mainstream mass media, 13 Feb 2007
Manufacturing Consent is Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's devastating critique of a complacent mainstream mass media. The book analyses prominent stories from the 1980s and samples much commentary from newspapers such as the New York Times and finds a disturbing consensus that permeates through the media market, a market that promotes itself to the public as being open, unbiased, independent of and fiercely critical of, establishment power.
The truth, according to Herman and Chomsky, is that due to a convergence of several key factors such as newspaper ownership patterns, the huge influence of advertising and what the media call 'credible sources of news', the mainstream mass media presents a highly distorted impression of what is and isn't news and how that news is selectively framed, interpreted and presented to the consumer - 'consumer' because news media don't sell news to the public, they sell consumers to advertisers.
What Chomsky and Herman are at pains to point out is that this is not a conspiracy theory - no one tells Jeremy Paxman or Andrew Marr what to write or write about - they don't have to be told because they wouldn't have ascended the corporate media ladder if they hadn't already successfully internalised all the underlying assumptions beforehand.
Perhaps where the book falls down is that it is a product of its time: many of the key case studies have been drawn from the 1980s, such as the difference in how the media presented pro-democracy revolutions in Eastern Europe (they supported them as the pro-democracy movement opposed an Official Enemy of the United States, the victims of the Soviet army (or their proxies) were mourned and the leaders of the revolutions courted) compared to pro-democracy revolutions in Central America (the media opposed them as the dictators who ran countries like El Salvador were by default democrats because the U.S. supported them, the victims in the death-squad democracies were neglected (even if they were American nuns) and the leaders of the pro-democracy revolutions were slandered, misrepresented or simply ignored). However, the lessons that Herman and Chomsky draw out from these studies have ramifications beyond their individual cases and can be readily applied to comparisons betwixt, say, democratic mutterings from the media on Iran or North Korea, compared to their commentary on the same subject on Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
If you are a journalist, student of media or journalism, or simply have an interest in how the news is put together, this book should be your key text.
Devastating critique of the American mass media, 30 Aug 2006
In 'Manufacturing Consent', Herman and Chomsky provide a very powerful analysis of the way in which the 'corporate' media distort the reality of world events. The pair are +not+ conspiracy therorists, a label they are often dismissed with, but rather posit a number of ways in which journalists and editors unconsciously but inevitably serve the interests of those in power. The model of the media they present is supported by an overwhelming volume of citations, often from declassified government documents, and this characteristic rigor of research seems to leave very little room in which their opponents might manoeuver. However, these opponents have the power of repetition, and unfortunately this wins over reason and evidence almost every time; hence the bizarre beliefs of much of the Amerrican public.
The 'Propoganda Model' (PM) of the mass media posits five 'filters' which serve to emphasize those elements of the news favourable to the American elite (i.e. the goverment and the corporate interests that it serves), and edit out those that show it in a bad light. These are: "(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit-orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by goverment, business, and 'experts' funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) 'flak' as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) 'anticommunism' as a national religion and control mechanism." In the first two chapters, the authors expound the model that arises from these premises. In the remaing chapters they examine a number of case studies, including examples from Central America and Indochina, comparing the written records of the time - e.g. CIA reports, NGO investigations, foreign media sources - with the reports that appeared in the American press and television. These data (often quantifiable things such as column inches or number of front page articles) fit with convincing accuracy the predictions of the PM.
The presentation of the book is scientific in style: a hypothesis is suggested, and (overwhelming) evidence to support it is cited. These citations are what gives the PM its avantage over its rival model (i.e. that the media are agressive and noble seekers of the truth, who know no boundaries). As I said in the introduction, this rival model's persuasiveness lies only in the frequency with which it is repeated or implied. Of course the same could be said for the belief that the earth is flat; we have come to accept (or at least so we claim) that if we are given evidence that a conventional belief is flawed, we should reject it. This book, with its huge body of objective evidence, constitutes insurmountable proof that this rival theory is indeed fatally flawed, and should therefore be abandoned. The facts that this remains unacknowledged, and that the book's authors are patronised, fit perfectly the predictions of the PM.
I strongly recommend that you read this book: if you do so with an open mind, it will deepen your understanding, or shatter your illusions, depending on your current standpoint. However, for those falling into the latter category, i.e. those largely unfamiliar with Chomsky's thinking, I would recommend that you start out (as I did) with 'Understanding Power', which is somewhat boader in scope, dealing in addition with aspects of society other than the media. For those interested in how the British media compare with the American, the editors of 'medialens.org' have just produced a book called 'Guardians of Power' which I believe applies the PM to Britain, though I am yet to read it. Please do give 'Manufacturing Consent' a try; it is a true mile-stone in twentieth century thought, picking up with passion where Orwell left off.
how the media filters news, 24 Feb 2006
this book is the most difficult chomsky book i have ever read.it is the first serious attempt to show how biased our so called independent media is.it shows by using well known news events how different organizations have used the same story and come up with different conclusions.the media like any political organisation practices self censorship,it's interesting to see what the media leaves out of it's reporting.after reading this book you will develop a healthy scepticism about what you hear or read in the media.the media certainly knows manipulate facts to fit any view they like to promote.after reading this book i have a very dim view of so called media
Disturbing account of events, 31 Dec 2007
I still remember seeing the twin towers collapse and could not help but think that there was something not quite right and this book merely confirmed my fears.
This book is excellently written in a concise and structured manner. It gives evidence, hipothetical accounts of what may have gone wrong and why it went wrong.
Would recommend also to those who enjoy reading "Conspiracy Theory" books.
Good book, some dubious elements, 05 Jul 2007
I first read this book after having been involved with the 9/11 Truth Movement for a long time. David Ray Griffin provides a lot of solid evidence that the United States government was complicit in the attacks, while not explicitly saying this is what happened. His book provokes you into critically analysing the events of that day for yourself instead of relying on the 9/11 Commission Whitewash.
There are some things I disagree with, such as Griffin's contention that whatever hit the Pentagon was not flight 77, but overall this is a good book. I recommend it.
Withering deconstruction of the official myth, 23 Jun 2007
On its own, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 presents a very convincing case that the official version of events regarding the 9/11 attacks is, to put it bluntly, a pack of lies. Dispassionately and with a total lack of histrionics, David Ray Griffin makes a case which I guarantee you will find hard to argue with. When read in conjunction with Griffin's related work, The 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions, the impression one is left with is that democracy no longer exists in the USA.
Ask yourself one question; how big a conspiracy are we facing, when a ostensibly democratic government could engineer a diabolically ingenious event such as 9/11 in order to give it the green light to wage endless wars of imperialistic aggression against whomsoever it wishes, and at the same time to gain the backing of official institutions, media and foreign governments, whilst ensuring its members make a nice fat profit into the bargain? Just how far, and how high, has the corruption spread?
The answer to that question is, as far as it possibly can. Any system which is corrupt at the top has to be, by its very nature, corrupt all the way up its hierarchy. As highlighted by David Ray Griffin, and without even examining any of the reams of other evidence that exists, far from being a democratically elected President, George W. Bush is an idiotic, despotic figurehead who was selected to advance a New World Order agenda of global domination in the hands of a super-rich elite who have, are, and will continue to, treat the human race like a huge herd of wealth-generating cattle.
The events of 9/11, when followed to their logical conclusion, suggest the existence of an agenda which is frightening in the extreme, and paint a bleak picture for the future of large numbers of the human race. Anyone who has done any additional research into the New World Order will know that mass depopulation of Planet Earth (from 6.5 billion to about 2 billion) is part of their plan, and 9/11 is one of the events which (they hope) will help them achieve their goals. To help prevent this agenda from reaching its conclusion it is essential to understand the real truth behind 9/11, and in this regard David Ray Griffin's work is almost second to none.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards world government. The supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, at the 1991 Bilderbergers meeting in Baden-Baden.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover.
Facts cannot be denied !, 28 Feb 2007
Everyone should read this well researched book, I am convinced by it & now believe the events were carefully [ but badly ] stage managed.
Anyone not convinced by it is surely the conspiracy theorist.
Why is it that people who question & dont take things at face value are always considered to be nuts ?
It's the people who do ask difficult questions & demand more information such as professor David Ray Griffin , who will help us find the truth.
I thank him for his work on this, but do worry about his safety with the ' dark forces '.
More such eminent thinkers are now asking for an enquiry , so hopefully there will be one . Let's hope the powers that be will not think they can get away with a 'whitewash ' because we will not allow them to get away with it.
Please read it your money will be well spent on the now historical facts of 9/11.
An outstanding introduction to revisionist 911 history, 17 Feb 2007
David Ray Griffin's book is a consumate presentation of most of the "hiccoughs" in the official theory concerning the Twin Towers and Pentagon attacks. His style is terse, transparent, and thought-provoking where it is not convincing. I have read the second edition, and it really is an improvement--each chapter concludes with a small section on new perspectives since the original version, and the long "Afterword" functions as a rhetorical capstone for the entire work. This book is fairly fast-paced and contains no "original" research, but nevertheless is responsibly documented. In spite of my unreserved recommendation of this book, I would strongly recommend any newbies to view the film "Loose Change" before reading it to help establish a map of the territory. Griffin's stated goal was to present a document that American lawmakers can grasp so as to incite an open and thorough investigation into the trigger for the never-ending war on terror. Respect for our brave citizens who are risking and losing their lives in this conflict demands nothing less.
Massive evidence, 08 Nov 2008
D.R. Griffin's second book on the 9/11 massacre is a terribly skilled comment on his first version, with some rectifications and some meticulous unraveling of controversial statements, timings and physical processes.
His overall picture stands more firmly than ever `that every dimension of the official account is false beyond reasonable doubt.' Hereafter, a few crucial points:
- the free vertical fall of the 3 WTC towers (of which one was not hit by a plane) makes a rather cynical joke of the NIST report. Controlled demolition is the only plausible explanation.
- the official version of the fact that the airplanes could not be scrambled doesn't stand a close examination of all the timings involved. A stand down order explains everything.
- the Pentagon could not have been hit by a plane, unless all its debris should have evaporated after the impact. A missile attack is more plausible.
- the identity of the hijackers, if any, is extremely obscure. For D.R. Griffin, much of the evidence that there were hijackers on the planes dissipates upon close examination. The planes could have been flown by remote control. See M.H. Gaffey's book `The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America'.
- the true identity of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda is anything but clear.
- cell phone calls could not be made from inside the airplanes.
- a close examination of the official 9/11 Commission Report shows that all controversial points were omitted or the subject of biased interpretations.
It all insinuates that all the deadly attacks were an inside job.
But why? They served as an excuse to wage war. D.R. Griffin: 'Members of the Bush-Cheney administration planned prior to 9/11 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, after which they hoped to attack five other countries. The commission shielded its readers from evidence that this administration include people with an even more murderous ideology.'
In the meantime, the public media continue to be completely gagged. A rather menacing silence is sometimes overshadowing the TV and radio studios and stations.
D.R. Griffin incriminates nobody. All he wants is a new and independent investigation to discover the truth.
This book with its perfect index and bibliography is a must read for all those interested in the 9/11 massacre and for all those who want to understand the world we live in.
Still making a compelling argument for an independent investigation, 22 Feb 2008
Professor David Ray Griffin's first book on the atrocity of 11th September, 2001, was named The New Pearl Harbor. This was a clear synthesis of other people's research, conveniently assembled in one book, articulately written and refreshingly free of hyperbole and foaming-at-the-mouth 'anti-government' hysteria. Written before the Independent 9/11 Commission published its findings, The New Pearl Harbor was in some way a plea not to ignore difficult and controversial evidence.
Griffin's sequel, was a book that responded to the official report on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, analysed how the Independent Commission handled this important but neglected evidence and also looked at just how independent this investigation actually was. From the title, we can tell that Griffin was distinctly unimpressed, articulating the anger and disappointment expressed by some of the victims families themselves.
A few books later, Griffin has produced his most comprehensive work yet: Debunking 9/11 Debunking (a terrible title indeed). This book systematically dismantles the work that has been produced by the apologists for the 9/11 Commission and its Official Conspiracy Theory. The main offenders here are Vanity Fair (which was instrumental in promoting the NORAD tapes, which became the basis for the film United 93), the book Without Precedent, written by the Chair and Vice Chair of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas H. Keen and Lee H. Hamilton respectively), the NIST report on the destruction of the World Trade Center and finally Popular Mechanics book, Debunking 9/11 Myths. Griffin also looks at the mostly unconvincing arguments put forth by those from the political left of the spectrum, who argue that the whole '9/11 Truth Movement' is a dangerous diversion from more important areas of popular struggle.
It would be redundant, here, to explain Griffin's arguments as to why each one of the pieces put forth by defenders of the Bush administration's position on 9/11 fails to encompass all of the available facts. Griffin calmly takes apart and deconstructs each argument. This is not the work an academic theologian arguing that he understands engineering, construction, or military and defense issues better than those who have spent their entire professional careers within the respective areas of the 9/11 story - Griffin solidly supports his contentions with readily source-able information from Admirals and Generals, pilots, intelligence officials and physicists, engineers and firefighters, mainstream news reports and independent studies.
Debunking 9/11 Debunking is an indispensable guide to the latest research on 9/11. It methodically demonstrates that, despite the best pretences of the liberal-conservative consensus, the alternative theory is at present, the only one that encompasses the majority of the available facts. When ideology is put to one side and a cold, hard look is taken at the evidence, the official version of events simply lacks credibility, as uncomfortable as that may seem. If nothing else, Griffin's book is a reminder that the more evidence uncovered around the awful events of 11th September, 2001, the more questions that are raised and as a result, we need most what we haven't yet got: a truly independent, international investigation.
An alternative to "Groupthink", 11 Feb 2008
Like everyone else I was taken in by the events of the day: the shock and awe. Looking back though it is very strange: why did those towers EXPLODE? where were the fighter jets? How come they were experts in TV studios ready to give explanations on who was behind the attacks while the attacks were happening? Even people on the street ready to be interviewed with a complete story of how and why the towers collapsed? How come people knew in advance of the attacks and conducted insider trading? Immediately after 9/11 there was the Anthrax attacks? (Remember those?)
Loads of questions...
And then there was matters that was hushed up: the biggest being the collapse of World Trade Center 7 - this was a huge building. Small compared to the twin towers but would be huge in any other city except New York: 47 stories. Untouched by aircraft it collapsed in 6.5 seconds in what looks like a perfect controlled demolition. No live TV cameras showed it coming down and as far as I can tell, the few videos of it coming down have never shown on BBC1 or major TV channels! Why not? Shouldn't we at least be worried by skyscraper safety?
So let's re-cap:
Advance warning of the event: widespread.
Fires exploding skyscrapers? Impossible.
Towers collapsing at free fall speeds: Impossible.
Dust clouds and Molten steel at ground zero: Not possible from a fire.
4 airliners over 4 hours not being intercepted by jet fighters: Highly improbable.
Rumsfold announces $2.2 TRILLION overspend on September 10th and the only department destroyed at the Pentagon on the 11th September are the AUDITORS looking at the overspend: highly suspicious!!!
From there explore all the evidence: all the craziness of that day and decide: how could this not be an inside job? Like a magic trick, the art is in the preparation... Building rigged for demolition? They must have needed someone on the inside for that? I wonder who they could get? (Google it: the answer will surprise!) The Bush Administration wanted a "New Pearl Harbor" (See Program for a New American Century) and they got it on 9/11.
Why? Throughout history, when a country goes to war, the aggressor first blames its victim for some indiscretion. The Bush Administration needed a b-i-g justification for its war in Afghanistan and Iraq and 9/11 provided that justification!
I am happy to be proven wrong on these assertions. The only way to do it is to have a new investigation into 9/11 just as the relatives of the victims of 9/11 are saying in "9/11 Press for Truth".
An Extraordinary Book on Extraordinary Events., 03 Jan 2008
The critical, formative event of this decade was 9-11, a term which actually refers to a series of events that took place on September 11th, 2001 in the United States of America. Few other events have had such an impact on public consciousness; none have been so thoroughly exploited by governments. To this day, it serves as the justification for a rash of policies from the declaration of a 'war on terror' to the expansion of executive powers and the disregard of human rights. Its shadow still stands over political discourse in more than one nation, and its echoes can still | | |