Stanford Review - Archive - Volume XXIX - Issue 3 - Opinion
Conspiracy Theorists Promote Constructive Dialogue
by Brian Ball
Perhaps one of the most commonly lamented features of the Stanford campus is its isolation in the so-called "bubble". Students here seem at times almost completely oblivious and apathetic to the world around them. How pleasing then it is to witness the engaging campus debate over whether or not Israel carried out the attacks of Sept. 11. This is a sign that students here are clearly increasing their use of "critical thinking" skills and are learning to question and examine the culture around them.
After all, as CSLI administrative associate Mitchell Smith has taken daring steps to demonstrate in the pages of the Stanford Daily, it is indeed certainly possible that Mossad might have known in advance about 9/11. Can anybody prove otherwise? If not, then we have to give this viewpoint as much credibility as any other. It is also correct, likewise, that those who attempt to dismiss such notions as "anti-Semitic" are attempting to silence legitimate debate. Jews, unfortunately, seem to stick that label indiscriminately upon anybody who happens, even mildly, to accuse them of plotting to control the world. This is clearly an obstruction of free speech and an attempt to deflect any criticism of Israel's role in 9/11. Clearly, people at Stanford are beyond such ancient prejudices and realize that Jewish conspiracies are only limited to the media, finance, government, and academia. That is correct, and let us repeat loudly and clearly that there is no, absolutely no Jewish conspiracy to dominate the NBA or any other sports organization. How can people be so closed minded in condemning poet Amiri Baraka for raising these engaging questions at a recent presentation on campus? Mr. Baraka's critics have completely distorted his works by taking out of context just a few lines that advocate killing Jews and attacking Jewish shops. Mr. Baraka is an artist, and he was merely being expressive and artistic. Why are Jews always trying to censor people who simply express the mere desire to kill them? After all, who doesn't fantasize about killing Jews? Thank goodness the Daily took pains to apologize for implying that Mr. Baraka's conspiracy theories were controversial.
But, before we focus in too closely on Israel, we at Stanford need to examine some other possibilities on the causes of 9/11. Let's be frank here. We all know who did this, it's just that we're all afraid to say it. Well here it is: this thing has the Pope's name written all over it. How could God's representative on Earth not have had prior knowledge? If you do not buy that argument then answer this: why were there no Catholic priests inside the World Trade Center when it collapsed? There is even a rumor going around that there were several suitcases full of holy water on the planes. Certainly we ought to give all such rumors very thorough examination, but we must all remember that all such rumors are true until proved false. Yet, still we must all lament that many closed minded individuals will no doubt confuse irrational criticism of the Pope with "Catholic-bashing".
Yet, upon even further examination and "critical thinking" one has to wonder if some other organization was not involved. Come to think of it, many of the facts on the ground would point in a direction close to home. Yes, that is correct: we need to take a close look at our own Stanford Daily. Certainly, any group of people as patently self-righteous as the Daily's editorial board certainly had to have seen this thing coming. We all know that the Daily's powers of investigation know no bounds. Oh, just imagine it; they are going to try to pin this thing on the bookstore. It might have worked before but not this time. And the post office won't work either. That's right; no doctored photos of postal employees throwing away Muhammed Atta's mail are going to fool this campus. And let's not see any editorials titled: "Attacks on the World Trade Center not conducive to cross-cultural understanding". That just won't fly. And let's not see any titled: "Al-Qaeda does not adequately promote diversity". Anybody can see through these. And please no news articles titled "females underrepresented among mujahadeen" or "Egyptian blames breakup with girlfriend on 'Israeli occupation of Palestine". That won't cover any of your dirty work. Give it up, Stanford Daily; the game's over.
Let's all hope that, as the school year progresses, we never cease presenting baseless conspiracy theories as legitimate viewpoints. Further, let us all hope that the University never ceases inviting Hezbollah supporters to campus or inviting innovative artists who ask such incisive questions as "Who doo doo come out the Colon's mouth?" or "Who know what kind of a skeeza is a Condoleeza?" Stanford is truly becoming the land of reasoned and impassioned discourse for which many have longed. One can only imagine how our distinguished alumni will react when they learn about how this campus has progressed. Maybe we should keep this our little secret. On the other hand, maybe not.
Page last modified on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2006 23:50:38 MST.