Jump to content
The Education Forum

Blacklisting


Recommended Posts

Here’s an interesting site,

http://911blacklist.org/

This site advocates the boycotting and blacklisting of Ryobi Tools because they had a ¼ page add in the issue of Popular Mechanics, the magazine which debunked the loose change video.

This site also blacklists Popular Mechanics, Marriott Hotels, Mr. Goodwrench, and a long list of others who don’t buy into 9/11 conspiracy theories, or are somehow affiliated with same. Here is a sample blacklist letter provided on the site for use by anyone wishing to stage a campaign against those who support the “official” story, such as the NIST report:

"To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to inform you and your company that [Company Name] is now a target of a worldwide boycott campaign directed at advertisers who support programming on [Network Name, ie CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.] and in particular, [Program Name, ie Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, etc.]. Your support of the anti-American propaganda aired on this network by people like [Program Name] is unacceptable and will not go unchallenged by freedom loving Americans.

Television personalities on [Network Name], for years now have attacked and ridiculed anyone who would question the official account of what happened before, during, and after the September 11th attacks. Rather than engage in open, honest, and transparent dialogue regarding 9-11, [Network Name] has repeatedly aired programming that is derogatory and insulting to the millions of Americans who now question what really happened on that day.

As a proud and patriotic American, I find this kind of rhetoric blatantly un-American and herby challenge all advertisers of the [Program Name] to pull their advertising dollars from this network and program.

As an added incentive for change, [Company Name] has been Blacklisted for boycott at the site http://www.911blacklist.org and will remain there until your advertising dollars are pulled and support for this type of propaganda is halted. After halting your support for [Network Name] and [Program Name], you may request removal from the Blacklist by emailing us. Include in your letter your intent to direct your advertising dollars outside of [Network Name] and [Program Name], the date of these changes, and a request to be removed from the 911blacklist.org Blacklist. 911blacklist.org will then post your letter at the website, and move your company from the Blacklist of boycotted advertisers, to the Whitelist of Recommended Business’s."

Nice… somehow this organization has reversed the idea that endorsing the NIST report or by debunking 9/11 CT is an expression of freedom of speech, instead indicating that the debunking itself is a denial of freedom of speech. If that method of expressing an opinion isn’t fascist I don’t know what is. Boycott anyone who disagrees with you? Where does it stop? I’d read about 9/11 ‘truthers’ harassing people on the streets who disagree with them, but this seems over the top

Why blacklist Popular Mechanics?

"

Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles’ acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn’t bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and ‘anti-terror’ operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?

Popular Mechanics’ March 2005 front cover story was entitled ‘Debunking 9/11 Lies’ and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.

Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

."

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... kinda like those on here who don't subscribe to every conspiracy theory under the sun and are called disinformation agents, or borgs, or any number of other names.

Ironic that those who feel they exemplify freedom of speech the most are the ones quickest to silence any alternative viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you say, gentleman, but I reserve the right to boycott anyone with whom I disagree.

But it certainly is ironic to see the 911 truthers engage in blacklisting, because it is difficult to discern the truth without obtaining and evaluating all of the relevant information (even evidence which refutes your pet theories) .

Sometimes boycotts work and other times they can have funny consequences.

In the waning days of the Clinton Administration, HUD Secretary signed an agreement with Smith & Wesson that the firearms community found repugnant to the Second Amendment (i.e. we don't like entering into agreements with the government regarding the exercise of Constitutionally protected individual rights).

Shooters and guns stores boycotted Smith & Wesson for a year or so, resulting in layoffs and dramatically reduced sale of its products.

It rescinded its deal with the Federal government and re-established the goodwill with the shooting community that it had squandered.

On the other hand, about the same time (or a little thereafter) the NOW and the NYT decided that Augusta National Country Club needed to admit women members.

The NOW pressured IBM, the major advertising sponsor, to withdraw its support of televising the Masters.

And the NOW and IBM pressured CBS to not televise it unless Augusta National admitted a female member.

Augusta National responded by telling CBS and IBM that they would host the tournament with or without their sponsorship or telecast, because Augusta National didn't need the money or the exposure.

A ticket to the Masters remains the toughest ticket in sports to obtain.

Augusta National agreed to the telecast of the tournament for 2 years with no sponsorship.

I watched it a few weeks ago and noticed that IBM was a substantial (or the lead) sponsor.

Jessie Jackson (remember him?) is known to threaten boycotts and allegedly shake down the targeted companies to funnel money to himself or to the Rainbow Coalition.

I have read that he threatened Anheuser Busch with a boycott (allegedly for failing to move minorities into distributorship and corporate executive positions), which he dropped when it awarded a Bubweiser distributorship in the Chicago area to his sons, Yusef and Jonathan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you say, gentleman, but I reserve the right to boycott anyone with whom I disagree.

But it certainly is ironic to see the 911 truthers engage in blacklisting, because it is difficult to discern the truth without obtaining and evaluating all of the relevant information (even evidence which refutes your pet theories) .

Sometimes boycotts work and other times they can have funny consequences.

In the waning days of the Clinton Administration, HUD Secretary signed an agreement with Smith & Wesson that the firearms community found repugnant to the Second Amendment (i.e. we don't like entering into agreements with the government regarding the exercise of Constitutionally protected individual rights).

Shooters and guns stores boycotted Smith & Wesson for a year or so, resulting in layoffs and dramatically reduced sale of its products.

It rescinded its deal with the Federal government and re-established the goodwill with the shooting community that it had squandered.

On the other hand, about the same time (or a little thereafter) the NOW and the NYT decided that Augusta National Country Club needed to admit women members.

The NOW pressured IBM, the major advertising sponsor, to withdraw its support of televising the Masters.

And the NOW and IBM pressured CBS to not televise it unless Augusta National admitted a female member.

Augusta National responded by telling CBS and IBM that they would host the tournament with or without their sponsorship or telecast, because Augusta National didn't need the money or the exposure.

A ticket to the Masters remains the toughest ticket in sports to obtain.

Augusta National agreed to the telecast of the tournament for 2 years with no sponsorship.

I watched it a few weeks ago and noticed that IBM was a substantial (or the lead) sponsor.

Jessie Jackson (remember him?) is known to threaten boycotts and allegedly shake down the targeted companies to funnel money to himself or to the Rainbow Coalition.

I have read that he threatened Anheuser Busch with a boycott (allegedly for failing to move minorities into distributorship and corporate executive positions), which he dropped when it awarded a Bubweiser distributorship in the Chicago area to his sons, Yusef and Jonathan.

I agree with you that anyone can boycott anything for any reason. After all, this is a free country, and people should be allowed to do business, to purchase goods and services, or not, with whomever they wish.

What caught my attention was the characterization by the blacklist site that debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theories was analagous to a denial of free speech, calling it "anti-American Propaganda" ,

and

".... rather than engage in open, honest, and transparent dialogue regarding 9-11, [Network Name] has repeatedly aired programming that is derogatory and insulting to the millions of Americans who now question what really happened on that day."

and

"As a proud and patriotic American, I find this kind of rhetoric blatantly un-American and herby challenge all advertisers of the [Program Name] to pull their advertising dollars from this network and program".

Now if they had a specific company or person in mind and had made a case for blacklisting, I might consider the merits of their claims.

But their claim is presented in a Form Letter! Their premise is that those who disagree with the (fill in the blank) conspiracy theory has, in so doing, denied them of the civil right to free speech.

I guess they have a right to exercise this type of blackballing, but I wouldn't want them to aim their propaganda at me.

But I do find their lack of subtlety almost funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you say, gentleman, but I reserve the right to boycott anyone with whom I disagree.

But it certainly is ironic to see the 911 truthers engage in blacklisting, because it is difficult to discern the truth without obtaining and evaluating all of the relevant information (even evidence which refutes your pet theories) .

Sometimes boycotts work and other times they can have funny consequences.

In the waning days of the Clinton Administration, HUD Secretary signed an agreement with Smith & Wesson that the firearms community found repugnant to the Second Amendment (i.e. we don't like entering into agreements with the government regarding the exercise of Constitutionally protected individual rights).

Shooters and guns stores boycotted Smith & Wesson for a year or so, resulting in layoffs and dramatically reduced sale of its products.

It rescinded its deal with the Federal government and re-established the goodwill with the shooting community that it had squandered.

On the other hand, about the same time (or a little thereafter) the NOW and the NYT decided that Augusta National Country Club needed to admit women members.

The NOW pressured IBM, the major advertising sponsor, to withdraw its support of televising the Masters.

And the NOW and IBM pressured CBS to not televise it unless Augusta National admitted a female member.

Augusta National responded by telling CBS and IBM that they would host the tournament with or without their sponsorship or telecast, because Augusta National didn't need the money or the exposure.

A ticket to the Masters remains the toughest ticket in sports to obtain.

Augusta National agreed to the telecast of the tournament for 2 years with no sponsorship.

I watched it a few weeks ago and noticed that IBM was a substantial (or the lead) sponsor.

Jessie Jackson (remember him?) is known to threaten boycotts and allegedly shake down the targeted companies to funnel money to himself or to the Rainbow Coalition.

I have read that he threatened Anheuser Busch with a boycott (allegedly for failing to move minorities into distributorship and corporate executive positions), which he dropped when it awarded a Bubweiser distributorship in the Chicago area to his sons, Yusef and Jonathan.

I agree with you that anyone can boycott anything for any reason. After all, this is a free country, and people should be allowed to do business, to purchase goods and services, or not, with whomever they wish.

What caught my attention was the characterization by the blacklist site that debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theories was analagous to a denial of free speech, calling it "anti-American Propaganda" ,

and

".... rather than engage in open, honest, and transparent dialogue regarding 9-11, [Network Name] has repeatedly aired programming that is derogatory and insulting to the millions of Americans who now question what really happened on that day."

and

"As a proud and patriotic American, I find this kind of rhetoric blatantly un-American and herby challenge all advertisers of the [Program Name] to pull their advertising dollars from this network and program".

Now if they had a specific company or person in mind and had made a case for blacklisting, I might consider the merits of their claims.

But their claim is presented in a Form Letter! Their premise is that those who disagree with the (fill in the blank) conspiracy theory has, in so doing, denied them of the civil right to free speech.

I guess they have a right to exercise this type of blackballing, but I wouldn't want them to aim their propaganda at me.

But I do find their lack of subtlety almost funny.

Peter-

I knew what you meant and I concur.

I watched a good bit of some conference of "9-11 Scholars" or something like that, and they acted like a bunch of barking dogs.

They need to blacklist some of their own speakers.

I believe some conspiracy theories, but not most.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They need to blacklist some of their own speakers.

Already done pretty effectively by the mainstream US media, I would have thought.

I have every confidence that you protested that much thorough-going actual censorship with commensurate vigour; and invite you, Scott and Peter to post examples of your no doubt abundant protests below.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...