I've been avoiding the topic of Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 because the blogosphere has extended more effort on the crockumentary than I ever well (for ex., MooreLies.com and MooreWatch.com - I LOVED Hitchen's response)

Needless to say, I consider the movie a complete waste of time, celluloid, bits, money, whatever.   What I've seen about the movie and Moore to date have convinced me that I will NOT do anything - direct or indirect - to support him or his cause.  

In a weird way, I can understand why Michael Moore came about - there was $100M of demand here which made it inevitable that the market would create this supply.  What I'm still trying to figure out is the Michael Moore fans.  What kind of psychological gratification do they achieve by forking over $8-$10 at a time to have a stream of half-truths and outright lies thrown out them bound together with skillful editing and snide voiceover?  

Part of the answer is something I mentioned on in a previous blog entry - for many, it's far more empowering to hate and attribute negative emotion towards the enemy they know (George Bush) vs. the one they don't (Islamo-fascism).   The enemy they know can be attacked with socially acceptable tools (debate, movies, votes, alliances, protests, posters, etc.) and attribute dark - but still comprehensible - ulterior motives to it (dumb, rich fratboy helping his cronies, plain ole stupidity, corporatism run amuck, etc.).  

The enemy they don't know has motives and means so foreign as to be indecipherable (beheadings?  a new caliphate?  burqas?  stonings?  suicide bombings?) - stuff Belmont Club observed had heretofore merely been hinted at, but never shown directly on screen in some of Hollywood's goriest movies.    Merely talking about their means requires discussing our counter-means - suicide bombings won't be stopped by JDAMs alone, but, at the opposite end, it's hard to imagine a long term solution that doesn't at least involve one or 2 of 'em in the mix. 

And, perhaps worse, confronting their motives requires tools which the Left / Post Modern Project has worked decades to eradicate from "proper" social discourse in its entirety (cultural assessments & assertiveness, physical strength & power as just, war, etc). 

But there's a second part to the equation - what does Moore do to tap into this need far better than others?   A big part of the answer is wonderly highlighted by this post in Gene Expressions which links to an utterly fascinating psych / propaganda analysis of F911 by a Dr. Kelton Rhoads -

Research has shown the quality of an argument is largely irrelevant. Professor James Stiff, a leading judgment researcher, found a wimpy overall correlation between quality evidence and attitude change. He found that humans don’t pay much attention to argument validity—rather, they pay attention to the argument’s claim or conclusion, and how closely that claim or conclusion matches their prejudices. If a poorly argued message concludes with what a person already believes is true, he’ll buy it...That’s why it’s so common to see people giving faulty reasoning and invalid conclusions a pass: as long as the propagandist arrives at the “correct” conclusion, it really doesn’t matter how he got there. Mere insinuation will serve about as well as solid evidence to prop up a prejudice.

The linked PDF is probably the most interesting yet utterly approachable teardown of F911 I've seen to date.   Dr. Rhoads is psych professor who is currently investigating, what else, propaganda techniques and his analysis of the techniques employed in F911 is simply devastating.   One example -

One of the most commonly employed propaganda techniques is the omission of relevant or truthful information that works against the propagandist's thesis... Here are a few of the significant omissions in Fahrenheit 9/11:

...In what Moore describes as one of the film's funniest moments, Moore ambushes congressmen, asking them to help him send their children to fight in Iraq.   Republican Congressman Mark Kennedy gives more one of his best clips:  a quizzical look that's used to humourous effect.   What's cut, however, is Kennedy's response:  "I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan."  According to the Star Tribune, Kennedy actually has 2 nephews in the military, and a son considering a career in the Navy.

There are many many many more.  Given that I gave Moore basically zero credence to begin with this wasn't too suprising to me.   BUT, more interestingly, I found Rhoad's doc loaded with brainfood & insight into the human psyche.   For example - this one, which of course, was exploited by Moore -

Humans quickly, easily, and naturally distinguish group membership based on visible indicators such as gender, race, and age.   But group preference is so easy to evoke that it can be based on much less.  In one exmaple, social scientists brought subjects into a lab and had them estimate the number of dots on a large sheet of paper.  Those who overestimated the number of dots were told to join one group, and those who underestimated the number of dots were told to join the other... It was discovered that, on the aggregate, each group had rated itself significantly higher than the other group in terms of competence, intelligence, and creativity.  Subjects preferred the groups to which they belonged and found them superior -- based on what?  On whether they had over- or underestimated dots on a page!

...Moore's mocking tone through the movie capitalizes on our desire to be part of the non-mocked group, and simultaneously appeals to our sense of superiority (the mockers always get to feel superior; those are the rules).   Images of brutal American sodliers, and vignettes of Americans with Southern accents, make obliging appearances as cruel or ignorant outgroupers for our mocking pleasure.

Great work by Dr. Kelton Rhoads!  Read it all.

---

UPDATE - I'd be remiss if I didn't link to Steven DenBeste's "Muqtada al-Moore" post from a few weeks back.  SDB's points out the silver lining to the al-Sadr uprising.  Sadr provided a focal point for previously fragmented opposition forces to assemble en masse and conclusively test their theories of society (and thus, indirectly, warfare) against ours.  

Alas, it was precisely this type of open, face-to-face shock battle where Coalition forces were most adept.  More importantly, it was precisely this environment which forced many previously acquiescent Iraqi's to say "you know, Sadr's world isn't really what I want".   Sadr's actions "called his own bluff" on what had been a low level, fantasy ideology.

Perhaps, as SDB contends, Moore is the central focal point for the Looney Left --

What I found myself wondering, after I read that, was whether Michael Moore may, in the end, turn out to be the American Loonie Left's Muqtada al-Sadr.

He's become the rallying point. He's raised the flag, and the most motivated LL's are flocking to support him. He's become their poster boy, their public face. He provides a focal point; he's a magnet around which they can gather and organize.

He has chosen the ground they will defend – and it is dreadful ground indeed.

Dr. Rhoads would certainly agree that Moore has chosen poor ground.

---