Paul Krugman’s Highbrow Trutherism

As we are all well aware of by now Paul Krugman wrote a scathing and astoundingly asinine post trashing several prominent Republicans who played an undeniably important role on 9/11. He, one can only assume out of an abundance of ass-hattery, posted his pathetic screed on the tenth anniversary of 9/11.

That is the most obvious and, therefore, most harped upon act of idiocy Krugman committed. But there is a deeper and more despicable act that Krugman and all the subsequent Krugman coddlers have engaged in.

It’s something I like to call highbrow turtherism.

Highbrow trutherism involves abandoning the conspiratorial beginnings of 9/11 trutherism but accepting all the conclusions of it anyway. Sure Bush and the other evil Republican’s didn’t orchestrate 9/11 but heck if they didn’t use it to forward their evil neocon agenda by starting two illegal wars!!11!1!!! Or, as Paul Krugman puts it:

Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

Or, as Glenn Greenwald puts it:

That’s because nobody — least of all those shrieking about Krugman’s “impropriety” — believes that 9/11 Day is meant to be apolitical.  They know that it’s deeply political — primarily political — and want it to be that.  That day has became so important precisely because it enables all sorts of consequential messages to be delivered — about the U.S., its role in the world before 9/11 and after, who is Good and Evil, the need for our Endless Wars and Surveillance State — all with a very emotional punch backing them up: the emotions prompted by the attack that are exploited to reinforce those messages and place them beyond the realm of questioning for decent people.

Or, as Medea Benjamin puts it:

And so on. And so forth. Ad nauseum.

It’s a smart little strategy though, no? Keep all the substantive attacks on your political opponents while disregarding the absolute insanity of the “9/11 was an inside job” crap. Why say Bush orchestrated 9/11 so he could start two illegal wars when you can just say Bush exploited 9/11 so he could start two illegal wars?!

You arrive at the same conclusions in the end without the burden of having to claim fire can’t damage steel. It’s a win-win situation, right?!

Highbrow truthers have the advantage of landing at the same political conclusions as regular truthers all while still being able to show their faces at the New York Times, Slate, Salon, and basically every other liberal publication in existence. Plus they get to keep putting on that air of sophistication and smugness they love so much without being scoffed at by other liberals whose opinion they value so highly.

Honestly, what lefty who has always held a fondness for the conclusions of the 9/11 truth nuts wouldn’t buy into highbrow trutherism? In fact, I bet their are many many more examples out there. Please, feel free to document any you come across down below in the comments.

3 Replies to “Paul Krugman’s Highbrow Trutherism”

  1. I don’t understand your argument. Krugman is saying that politicians used a national disaster for political gain. That may or may not be true in this instance but it’s certainly believable that it could happen. Someone could believe that a Japanese politician was manipulating the political fall-out about the nuclear disaster and the earthquake without believing that the politician actually caused it. Those are two very different sets of beliefs.

  2. This is what Bush Derangement Syndrome, Palin Derangement Syndrome and Tea Party Derangement Syndrome is all about. Slime like Al Franken, Jeanine Garafalo, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and Patrick “Patches” Kennedy are all about. Sickening.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *