BBC2 conspiracy series & 9/11 programme

[andrewwatson]

Will they get it right this time?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6160775.stm

9/11: The Conspiracy Files


We all know what happened on 9/11, the day the world changed. Or do we?

BBC TWO: THE CONSPIRACY FILES

9/11: The Conspiracy Files
Coming up in in the New Year

The Conspiracy Files investigates the growing number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

Incredibly some believe the American Government allowed or actively helped the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

Those who question the official version believe the World Trade Centre buildings were actually demolished by explosives; others ask why there was so little damage to the Pentagon's outer wall if a plane really had hit it.

And why was America so unprepared when terror attack warnings had been received?

The Conspiracy Files travels across the United States to investigate, speaking to eye witnesses and tries to separate fact from fiction.

Producer: Guy Smith
Series Producer: Mike Rudin
Executive Producer: Dominic Crossley-Holland

[Hazzard]

[Thermate]

[ianrcrane]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for the update on the Beeb 9/11 Truth movement documentary.

Does anyone have any idea when this BBC documentary is scheduled for broadcast? I wonder if the programme will comment on the fast-growing 9/11 Truth Movement outside of the US ... or whether it will try to present it as a purely US phenomena?

If it happens to be sometime between mid-January to mid-February, it would be a wonderful primer for William Rodriguez's forthcoming tour of the UK, in the latter part of February 2007!

Once when have established when the programme will hit the airwaves (and if the timing is right), we should plan on being ready to follow up with Rodriguez Press Releases to the local media, in the areas where he will be speaking.

So far we have commitments to host a Rodriguez talk in London, Plymouth, Exeter, Bristol, West Yorkshire ... Anyone else up for arranging a a talk for William in their area?

If so, please PM Annie at the earliest possible opportunity. We have one week to get some dates & Venues organised if we are to include them in the advertisements that Chris Bovey (9/11 Truth Totnes) has secured in Nexus Magazine & Fortean Times.

The Rodriguez tour is also an ideal platform from which to launch the 7/7/7 event - Andy Baker is on the case.

There are a number of seriously prolific contributors to this Forum ... but where are they when their is a real opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to the quest for Truth? Come on TTWSU3 and co, it's time to get off your keyboard and get in amongst the real activists ... i.e. those who make stuff happen!

Hey TTWSU3, you organise a Rodriguez event in your area in February... and I'll gladly join your proposed March for Truth. Stay silent ... and I guess we will know that your contribution ceases as soon as you hit 'Submit'.

This is a tremendous opportunity to take the awareness of 9/11 Truth in the UK, to the next level.

Ian R. Crane
Chair - 9/11 Truth Campaign (Britain & Ireland)

[cheggerz]

Ian

This will be a hit piece I'm certain. There was a BBC crew that spent some time (a day or two) with Alex Jones back in the summer and they basically admitted what they would do.

They only asked destructive straw-man type questions, 'sneering and snickering' as AJ would say and point-blank refused to discuss Northwoods or any other piece of solid evidence.

I'll see if I can find the recording of his show when he talks about it, if I do I will post it.

So I wouldn't get my hopes up about this program, although I do hope I'm wrong.

Cheggerz

[jason67]

[Skeptic]

it might be an idea to produce leaflets with facts we're pretty sure won't be covered and hand them out near the time of broadcast

I'll knock something up

[Ally]

[jason67]

[kbo234]

Producer: Guy Smith
Series Producer: Mike Rudin
Executive Producer: Dominic Crossley-Holland

Here are the programme's producers. We could try emailing guy.smith@bbc.co.uk and mike.rudin@bbc.co.uk

Crossley-Holland is only moving to the BBC from being ITV Controller of Current Affairs, Arts and Religion (what chance this guy is going to be an open-minded free-thinker?.....his job title could have been written 'Head of PTB propaganda and mind-control').
This is going to be his first series with the BBC (I think). He does, however, call himself a 'Christian'. This should imply that his primary concern will be for truth and the well-being of all, particularly the lowly....We'll see.....

Personally I will be amazed if this programme is not a determined effort to misrepresent the evidence and ridicule the lot of us.

We might try writing letters to Mr Crossley-Holland at the BBC and hope they reach him.

[jason67]

[Garcon Warrior]

I think the first of these conspiracy files starts on Sunday with Dianas death so it should be within the next few weeks.

[DisgracedDemocracy]

I think we are better off emailing the people who make Panorama. If a programme is made by them it will be given more credibility. As a result greater affect.

[TonyGosling]

If it is to be a whitewash again (what a suprise that would be) we should either be handing out our own DVD's on the day of (or after) transmission to staff at Television Centre and White City and/or making formal complaints to the BBC board of Governors.

Also there should be letters going in to all national newspapers with the 7 or so killer questions which this film will not ask.

Tony

[Andrew Johnson]

This will be a good way to gauge where they want to go with 9/11 Truth issues - as another poster above has said, we could maybe sort of use the opening minutes of Loose Change 2 and compare what the programme shows to that (e.g. Northwoods etc).

My guess is that it is likely to be not much different to Channel 4's 9/11 Conspriacies from 2004. I bet they'll mention CD but use the weakest evidence and then talk about the dodgy stock dealings etc and maybe a bit on the pentagon.

I'd be surprised if they mention the Scholar's group, though they might now that it has itself undergone controlled demolition!

[TonyGosling]

The ethos of this series seems to be to blame conspiracy theorists for creating fear. Sounds like the BBC have been talking to military psychological operations operatives. Those people who are consulted by the military to help 'freshen the breath' of invading armies.

So, who is exploiting fear here - those who are taking away our rights and civil liberties or those who are not afraid to investigate high crimes and misdemeanors?? And who understand that it is to positions of political power that the criminal and the greedy aspire.


Plots, paranoia and blame
By Peter Knight
Senior lecturer in [pro.? ed.] American Studies, University of Manchester

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6213226.stm

There have undoubtedly been conspiracies throughout history, and people have probably always speculated about a hidden, sinister hand behind events.

But it was only in the late 18th Century that the idea of a vast plot shaping the course of history began to grip European and American imaginations with fears that the French Revolution was the result of a plot by secret societies such as the Freemasons or the Illuminati.

The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to an economics article in the 1920s.

But it is only since the 1960s that it entered popular usage.

Indeed, conspiracy theory, only entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary for the first time in 1997.

Exploiting fear

Conspiracy theories have served different political and cultural functions during the last two centuries.

Often minority groups or outsiders are blamed for social woes, in a familiar process of scapegoating that helps to provide a comforting sense of coherence and community to those who believe their way of life is imperilled by conspiring forces.

The principal target of conspiracy theories has shifted from the "red scare" to the " fed scare".


Moreover, these popular fears are exploited by those in positions of power in order to further their own vested interests.

But in the 20th Century, and particularly since the 1960s, conspiracy theories have increasingly pointed the finger of blame at the powerful, usually the government and the intelligence agencies.

In effect, the principal target of conspiracy theories has shifted from the "red scare" of McCarthy's distrust of communism to the "fed scare" - a deep distrust of anything official.

This is partly a result of a loss of faith in authorities in recent decades: opinion polls show that in the US in the early 1960s three quarters of Americans trusted the government, but by the 1990s only a quarter claimed to do so.

There was a resurgence of trust following 9/11, but that has faded with the war in Iraq.

Hollywood effect

Why have conspiracy theories become so prominent since the 1960s?

The rise in conspiracy thinking has usually been seen by academics as a sign of popular paranoia in those on the margins of society.


Richard Nixon resigned over Watergate in 1974

Condemned as paranoid thinking, conspiracy theories are dismissed as mental aberrations which could do only harm.

But a different explanation for its increasingly mainstream popularity is the trickle of revelations about government and corporate wrongdoing that emerged in the 1970s and after, with Watergate the prime example.

Another reason is that conspiracy theories have now become a form of entertainment, not least in Hollywood, making them both more widespread but also less dangerous.


You now need, as the popular wisdom has it, to be a little paranoid to remain sane


Conspiracy culture has become a surprisingly self-conscious phenomenon, with TV series such as the X-Files, and films such as the 1997 Conspiracy Theory starring Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts, and Oliver Stone's JFK.

Often people believe in a conspiracy when no other explanation seems to fit the bill, particularly when trying to work out the exact linkages of blame and causation in a globally connected world.

Paranoia

Following the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 in particular, conspiracy theories have become a regular feature of everyday political and cultural life.

Conspiracy theories have become part and parcel of people's normal way of thinking about who they are and how the world works.


Certainty has given way to doubt, and conspiracy has become the default assumption in an age which has learned to distrust everything and everyone


They have become a semi-respectable way of analysing how the world of complex political power works, with even Hillary Clinton seeing fit to claim - not without some justification - that there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" out to get her husband during his impeachment.

You now need, as the popular wisdom has it, to be a little paranoid to remain sane.

A certain kind of world-weary paranoia has become the norm, in both entertainment culture and popular politics.

The theories sometimes express a sense of connectedness that is both scary and transcendent: the American novelists Thomas Pynchon and Don DeLillo have explored this possibility in depth.

It is also noticeable that since the paradoxically secure paranoia of the anti-Communist decade of the 1950s, conspiracy theories now often provide a sense of insecure paranoia in which it is no longer easy to distinguish between Them and Us in the current pervasive environment of risk.

Certainty has given way to doubt, and conspiracy has become the default assumption in an age which has learned to distrust everything and everyone.

Conspiracy spread

It is also arguable that the current climate of fear post-9/11 marks a return to the conspiratorial certainties of McCarthyism.


Many people question the official analysis of 9/11
Why do Americans seem particularly prone to believing in conspiracy theories?

With their Puritan legacy of always seeking the Devil behind inexplicable events, a Republican distrust of secrecy and special privileges, a recurring - but usually unfounded - sense that the exceptional mission of America is threatened by un-Christian enemies, and an abiding faith in the power of individualism closely followed by a fear of anything that threatens the individual, Americans have often been quick to turn to conspiratorial explanations that blame all manner of external forces for why things have not worked as hoped.

Although Americans have had a special affinity with a conspiracy talk, they no longer have a monopoly on the paranoid style.

With the growth of new media technologies conspiracy theories now circulate around the globe at lightening pace, and in recent years the UK has become increasingly attracted to rumours of conspiracy.

Peter Knight is a Senior Lecturer in American Studies at the University of Manchester. He is the author of Conspiracy Culture (2000), The Kennedy Assassination (To be published in 2007), and the editor of Conspiracy Nation (2002) and Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopaedia (2003)

[Newspeak International]

...no way will they show any full and complete collapse footage of the 2 Towers(The whole 10 seconds times 2),nor anything of the Pentagon except maybe long shots, certainly nothing before the roof collapse.

Longshots of the Shanksville smoke cloud and hazzard tape a plenty.

And probably a re-run of the Horizon "pancaking theory"cgi, though they don't call it that,now it's the "progressive collapse theory" via the "accelerated velocity of mass theory",coupled with the "exploding jet fuel really can weaken steel in air in an hour" theory.

Yeah it's an open and shut case,no question.

[TonyGosling]

The other view - the rogue network MUST exist

Somewhere a Banker Smiles
Muffled noises from the ranks of the babbling paranoid
http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2006/12/somewhere_a_ban.html

By Joe Bageant
It's hard as hell to keep conspiracy theories out of one's mind these days. And I'm not talking about "Who really brought down the Twin Towers? or the "Are Zionists behind the Iraq War?" kind of stuff. The booger stalking my ragged old mind these days puts both of those in the shade. And it runs like this:
Is the consumerist totalization of this country and the world really a conscious plot by a handful of powerful corporate and financial masters? If we answer "yes" we find ourselves trundled off toward the babbling ranks of the paranoid. Still though, it's easy enough to name those who would piss themselves with joy over the prospect of a One World corporate state, with billions of people begging to work for their 1,500 calories a day and an xBox chip in their necks. It's too bad our news media quit hunting with live ammo decades ago, leaving us with no one to track the activities and progress of what sure as hell seem to be global elites, judging from the financial spoor we find along every pathway of modern life.
In our saner moments we can also see that it does not take dark super-centralized plotting to pull off what appears to have been accomplished. Even without working in overt concert, a few thousands of dedicated individual corporate and financial interests can constitute a unified pathogenic whole, much the same as individual cells create a viable dominant colony of malignant organisms -- malignant simply by their anti-human, anti-societal nature. We don't see GM, Halliburton, Burger King and CitiBank lobbying the state for universal health or clean rivers, do we? But mention unions or living wages, and the financial colony within our national Petri dish shape shifts into a Gila monster and squirts venom on the idea and * money all over Capitol Hill. I looked at all this as coincidence for years until the proposition finally strained credulity so much that I threw in the towel and said, "* it. There is only so much coincidence to go around in this world."
Put another way, the global decision makers, international planners, financial institutions, political parties, media conglomerates, corporations, banks, a hegemonic, accumulative bloc working in concert to coordinate the extraction of wealth from first and third world alike. A series of privately held international institutions to which and from which money can be moved to leverage nations and populations according to their needs is probably gonna do just that because they can. National territory doesn't mean * to such people, and those who govern said territory mean even less, except to the extent they can obstruct or incite resistance. People like Castro and Chavez. But even they are they are just the thorn in the lion's paw.
Consider this: The war in Iraq has been immensely profitable for the people who make weapons and for the contractors who supposedly rebuild what the weapons destroy. They profit in either case. And the longer war goes on the more they will make.
Meanwhile, the money for both is obtained through extraction practiced upon the world's laboring poor. But the big money, the "juice" as street people used to say, comes from squeezing the orange of American society for more work, more production and tax money. Some of us older oranges are feeling pretty wrung out these days and are getting hard as hell to get along with. Yet, the squeeze doesn't seem to bother most Americans at all. The pressure has been so great and so constant that no one any longer feels it. It has become so pervasive as to be incomprehensible to ordinary people. For example, seventy cents of every income-tax dollar goes to pay for past, present, and future wars. Education gets two cents. As Michael Parenti has pointed out, the cost of military aircraft parts and ammunition kept in storage by the Pentagon is greater than the combined federal spending on pollution control, conservation, community development, housing, occupational safety, and mass transportation all put together. And the US Navy spends more money in its never ending development of a submarine rescue vehicle than is spent for public libraries, occupational safety, and daycare centers combined.
Collectively, these financial super-elites, who either do or do not exist, must be at least somewhat aware that they are managing the world. Otherwise, why would we have Davos conferences and such? Global financial conferences where the likes of Bill Clinton and Al Gore and John Kerry are merely the entertainment, mere proof of the attendants' prestige? Can it be true that the world's real players practically yawned at Alan Greenspan's cryptic little speeches while waiting for the backstage action with the real movers and shakers from Goldman, Citibank and others, none of whom we have ever heard of but never the less are said to account for the drop in gas prices in the U.S. just prior to the 2006 mid-term elections? Word has it that they changed the index last July so oil futures holders would be forced to dump in October and November, creating a mild glut during the elections. If that is true, then we can probably thank them for that Dow 12,000 last month too.
Meanwhile, back in Camp Davos, the lustful, pathologically approval seeking, bright student teddy bear from Hope, Arkansas expounds and entertains the new global elites. And everyone has Beluga caviar and chopped hardboiled quail eggs afterward, even as more than one billion people live on less than one dollar a day. "And have you tried the unborn calf veal poached in Peruvian sheep's milk at the Swiss bank suite? It's to die for!" Nobody is remotely worried about blowback from that billion people eating moldy cassava or rat urine polluted rice, because poverty, well, poverty is not threat, is it? Just a source of cheaper labor. "Now, about the oil crude taps and NYMEX . . . "
Personally, I've decided they are real and that they constitute an unseen class, and that they are mid-stage in becoming the most powerful class the earth has ever seen. One that American politicians not only refuse to publicly acknowledge, but when pressed, flatly swear does not exist. Show me the Republican or Democratic leader who says, "Politics is economics by other means, and our own Federal Reserve Bank is a privately held institution, not a governmental one, and is an interlocking part of the global financial network which owes allegiance to no country or ordinary citizens, regardless of nationality." Or, "My corporate campaign contributions come from people whose every action is directed at extracting two things from you, my dear voter: Your money and the cheapest possible labor you can be driven to provide. The absolute cheapest possible payment to you for the hours of your life consumed by work, which, depending upon the degree of your delusion, is called either a job or an exciting career."
No American politician is going to admit that. You must go to Venezuela or the smoldering dumps of Manilla or fields of Chiapas to hear that sort of truth.
Admittedly, there is at least some reason for fear among these elites. The US economy, the real material economy, is dreadfully weak, having been so gutted by parasitic speculation. The only source of strength left here is the military, which is currently at play in an effort to gain control over the world's energy supply, and make damned sure no one gets any funny ideas about using anything but dollars in trading oil. But the real players say, "Well then, let the Americans keep it if they can! If the U.S. loses, then someone else wins. No matter. We can leverage our position form any emerging market point on the globe. And doesn't China look like a real comer, old boy! History is long. The Chinese understand that." Thus we find the Chinese creating joint American holding companies to buy up commercial US real estate at bottom dollar after the crash. At some future point it could neatly offset their current loans to US for more consumption of Chinese goods. And if the Americans get too pissy, the Chinese can always turn off the money spigot.
On the other hand, this monstrous class of parasites has not yet won over the entire world. America seems to be their only complete victory, and that one will hold only as long as superheated consumption can be sustained. They have only been at it for maybe forty years, and are still pouring the foundation for the global gulag, setting the rules as they go. And they are hitting at least a few speed bumps: "Why is Castro still stinking up the joint, fer godzsake? And now we've got that blasted mexi-nigger dwarf Evo Morales in his goddamned stinky little dime store sweater strutting around like he was president or something. And why inna hell hasn't somebody smoked these b******? Doesn't the CIA do anything for their paychecks anymore?"
Probably not. Last we heard the CIA was sidelined, sent to the benches until they come up with those goddamned weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile, a Chinese economist calculates the US trade deficit. A Swisse Bank exec orders another bottle of wine, and a Shia youth receives instruction in how to blow up an oil pipeline.
Only the Chinaman and the bank exec are smiling.

[andyb]

If the bloke is a Christian we should send him a copy of DRG's latest book although I'm sure they would have it completed by now. It may be quite balance you never know. If it isn't then a demo outside Broadcast House is essential. Being a public broadcaster they do have to appear impartial so the complaint route may be the way forward too. Did anyone see Morgan Stack's(our Vice Chairman in Ireland) complaint in Ireland? Well worth look

http://www.911truth.ie/bcccomplaint.html

[mason-free party]

well at least we won't have to put up with the piss taking of jon Ronson...lets face it if the BBC don't start reporting the truth soon then who will buy a TV licence?...because i certainly won't be funding a zionist propaganda channel

[Gibson]

Post comments here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/12/the_danger_with_conspira cies_1.html

I have to say the definition of conspiracy that they use here is nonsense!

"an agreement to perform an illegal or wrongful act"


---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------
Conspire:

Etymology
From Latin con-, combining form of cum, with, + spirare, breathe; literally breathe with

in other words "of the same mind"

I have left a comment regarding Diego Garcia - John Pilger so as people can look back in history and see that it' happened before.

Whether it will be published??

[rodin]

I second that

[Wokeman]

Well, before we are all weeping tears of remorse and declaring how wrong could we have been in pre-judging the BBC's response in its quest to present a fair and objective investigation into how Diana, Princess of Wales died, read this:

Tests confirm Diana's driver was drunk
Saturday December 9, 02:41 PM

LONDON (Reuters) - French investigators say new evidence confirms Princess Diana's driver Henri Paul was drunk on the night she died, the BBC reported in a documentary to be broadcast on Sunday.

Although the official French inquiry blamed the 1997 crash on the chauffeur being drunk and driving too fast, conspiracy theorists have always questioned that verdict.

Mohamed al Fayed, father of Diana's companion Dodi, who was killed in the crash, has repeatedly said the pair were murdered because their relationship was embarrassing the royal household. He and Paul's parents said the driver was sober when the car hit a pillar in a Paris underpass.

They have said that blood samples taken from him after his death which showed he had been drinking might have been swapped in hospital to pin the blame for the crash on him.

The British Broadcasting Corporation's documentary says French police ordered DNA tests on Paul's blood sample to prove it was his and had not been switched in hospital.

The DNA profile was compared with samples taken from Paul's parents and the two matched, apparently ruling out the possibility of swapped samples.

"There is not a shadow of a doubt," French police commander Jean-Claude Mules told the BBC in extracts from the programme shown on Saturday. "Top British experts have confirmed the accuracy and the excellence of the analysis done by the French."

British and French authorities have dismissed the welter of conspiracy theories about the death of Diana.

Former London police chief Sir John Stevens was called in to investigate the crash and the theories surrounding it. He is due to unveil the results of his three-year probe next week. Newspapers say he will conclude the crash was a tragic accident.

Paul was a member of the security staff at the Ritz Hotel in Paris where Diana had dined.

In a newspaper interview on Saturday, French detective Martine Monteil, who led the French investigation, said there was "not a shred of doubt" the crash was caused by Paul's high-speed drunk driving.

"Those DNA samples and the test results were all sent to the British police," she told the Daily Mail. "Nothing was swapped."

British inquest hearings into the deaths of Diana and Dodi al Fayed are due to begin next month.

[Reflecter]

TonyGosling,

With regards PeterKnight, his Manchester staff page has this to say about him.

http://www.arts.manchester.ac.uk/subjectareas/englishamericanstudies/a cademicstaff/peterknight/

Research Interests and Supervision
Conspiracy Culture

My first area of research has been the changing style and function of conspiracy theories in American literature and popular culture, especially since the 1960s. My project has been to revise the classic interpretations of the "paranoid style" that were developed in the 1950s and 60s, by showing that conspiracy thinking can longer be dismissed as the delusional mindset of extremists. Using a cultural studies methodology to challenge the classic psychohistorical approach, I have sought to demonstrate that more recent forms of American conspiracy culture serve as important ways of making sense of ideas about causality, agency and responsibility in the era of globalization. My monograph, Conspiracy Culture: From the Kennedy Assassination to "The X-Files" (Routledge, 2000) examines a wide range of cultural narratives and practices, discussing the proliferation of conspiracy narratives about the New World Order, the Kennedy assassination, alien abduction, body panic, patriarchy, and white supremacy. I am also contributing a book titled The Kennedy Assassination for the new Edinburgh University Press series "Representing American Events." My edited collection Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Postwar American Paranoia (New York University Press, 2002) brought together an international group of scholars who are also engaged in the project of rethinking the standard analysis of conspiracy theories in American culture. I also edited Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia (ABC-CLIO, 2004; 2 vols), which expands this new approach to conspiracy culture to the entire range of American history.
Market Culture

My new research is on the culture of the market, and is a development of my previous work on popular suspicion in relation to changing economic and social formations. Based on research carried out at the Baker Library of Harvard Business School, "Reading the Market: Confidence and Suspicion in Late Nineteenth-Century America" examines ideas about credit, confidence men, corporations, currency and conspiracy in a wide range of texts drawn from literature, popular culture, and economic theory. In contrast to the standard account of the development of financial capitalism in the late nineteenth century that sees a shift toward increasingly impersonal and abstract interactions, my research has uncovered the persistence of a surprisingly personalised approach to economic life. This interdisciplinary research is part of a larger project to explore ways of bridging the gap between literary and cultural studies on the one hand, and business history and history of economics on the other.

Research Supervision

I would be interested in supervising projects in the fields outlined above, as well as other areas of nineteenth- and twentieth-century American literature and culture. Potential research topics that I would be particularly interested in:

* history of popular and literary representations of American corporations, and corporate self-representations in PR (especially using the archives of the overseas divisions of US corporations)
* comparative study of how Americans and Europeans came to mis/understand political economy (in business schools curricula, popular self-education manuals, etc.)
* comparative analysis of popular guides to the stock market in 19thC Britain and the US (and/or contemporary Eastern Europe)
* literature, film and popular culture in the wake the demise of the international gold standard in 1973
* Americanization and anti-Americanism: transnational approaches to the role of demonology in American politics and culture (especially post-9/11)
* reassessment of particular episodes of American countersubversive fears such as the Illuminati scares of the 1790s
* investigation of mega-conspiracy theories in contemporary literature and popular culture
* critical discourse analysis of apocalyptic conspiracy rhetoric in neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism

Selected Recent Publications

Books

Conspiracy Culture: From the Kennedy Assassination to "The X-Files" . New York and London: Routledge, 2000.

The Kennedy Assassination . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, forthcoming 2007.

Edited Books

Knight, Peter, ed. Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America. New York: New York University Press, 2002.

Knight, Peter, ed. Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. 2 vols. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2003.

Knight, Peter and Jonathan Long, eds. Fakes and Forgeries: The Politics of Authenticity in Art and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2004.

Contributions to Edited Collections

"'A Plague of Paranoia': Theories of Conspiracy Theory Since the 1960s." In Nancy Lusignan Schultz, ed., Fear Itself: Enemies Real and Imagined in American Culture. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1998: 23-50

"ILOVEYOU: Viruses, Paranoia, and the Environment of Risk." In Jane Parish and Martin Parker, eds, The Age of Anxiety: Conspiracy Theory and the Human Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell/Sociological Review Monograph, 2001. 17-30.

"Making Sense of Conspiracy Theories." In Knight, ed., Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. 2 vols. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2003. 15-25.

Journal Articles

"Naming the Problem: Feminism and the Figuration of Conspiracy." Cultural Studies. 11 (1997): 40-63.

"Everything Is Connected: Underworld's Secret History of Paranoia." Modern Fiction Studies. 45 (1999): 811-36.

" JFK and the Love Bug: The 'As If' Solution." Clio's Psyche . 7.3 (2000): 106-107.

In preparation:

"Enemies Within: American Demonology since 9/11."

" 'No Trust': Credit in Melville's The Confidence-Man."

=============

He appears to be open to further research and promotion of discourse of various theories. Does anybody think he would be worth approaching re 9/11 events in Manchester?

[simonralli]

This is on now. Half way through. Very sceptical tone so does not bode well for the 911 episode. (Like this is a real shock).

They have just done a long section about the Fiat Uno and claimed it was never found. I thought the Channel 5 documentary reported on the fact that the UNO was found and that it belonged to a journalist, who was then found in the UNO and burned to death? Am I wrong about that?

Anyway, this documentary is clearly out to dismiss the conspiracy, so dont hold your breath for a BBC expose, even though they are the ones who reported the hijackers alive and well.

Si

[mobypaterson]

Apologies if this has already been posted...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6162121.stm

[Mark Gobell]

Wish I had counted the number of times the BBC Conspiracy Files programme on Diana used the word "conspiracy", maybe it might have been a derivative of 11 or . . .

Anyway, this programme was broadcast on the 111th month and 11th day of . . . . , well you know the rest . . . .

The medium is indeed the massage.

[Hazzard]

That was pretty horendeous the way they continually classed anyone who doesnt believe the official story as a conspiracist. Constantly they rammed it into the audiences head that these people were different to you and I.

The BBC is nothing but the propaganda arm of the government.

Also their terminology was extremely subversive. One moment they admit that the blood samples were swapped with a drunk suicide victim. The next minute they say that it wasnt swapped.

At the end most people will just be left even more confused than before. Not to mention the shills that they chose to back up the official story was so obvious.

[Hazzard]

British Brainwashing Corperation does it again.

Cannot wait to see their whitewash on 9/11.

[Sinclair]

Worth remembering this, from the BBC Charter Agreement (or here).