PDA

View Full Version : Negating the "conspiracy theorist" label



Myra Bronstein
03-27-2009, 01:42 AM
Almost without fail when I start talking about connected dots, particularly the 1963 coup, my conversational partner says "oh you're one of those conspiracy theorists." They then recoil like a horse confronted with a rattlesnake.

I'm amazed at the effectiveness of the campaign (conspiracy) to discredit those of us who connect dots. People are more afraid of "conspiracy theorists" than they are conspiracies.

If their minds are at all salvageable after the decades of brainwashing I want to try to get through to them. So lately I've replied "oh you're one of those coincidence theorists." The hope is to turn the tables and put them on the defensive and get them to see how absurd it is to consider everything a coincidence.

What do you think of this strategy? Willing to try it out? What is an example of a conspiracy that even the most programmed sheeple would have to acknowledge as genuine?

Magda Hassan
03-27-2009, 02:23 AM
Oh, boy, am I with you on this one. :ridinghorse:

I've been using the co-incidence theorist line too and it does get them on the defensive and thinking differently.

Most of the people I know accept conspiracies as fact of life as most of the people I know are very politically active in one way or another at one time or another. The rest of the people I know are criminals of various kinds some of them perfectly respectible people. But for people who are not in this area and have illusions about the world and society and how it works it is a big hurdle to get over. They don't often see the dots let alone join them. For them the elephant in the room is just a thing to put the sofa against and hang the plasma tv on. Our whole society is based on illusions, lies and conspiracies. Let's start with Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Obama tells us 'we are in this together' like we are all the same and have the same interests and have been equally responsible for the state of things as if we are co-conspiritors with the criminals. Partners conspire to keep their affairs and internet browsing history and credit card statements secret from their significant other. Executives conspire to load their expense accounts with things they have't actually forked out for. Ditto tax lodgement forms. Bosses conspire to steal the surplus value created by their workers every day and keep it for them selves and yet tell their workers they have been paid in full for their work. Our whole capitalist system is based on that one. Advertisers and Disney tell us that if we buy this product, dress, behave this way one day our prince will come and everyone will love us. Food manufacturers tell you that it is a vanilla/chocolate/strawberry icecream and yet it has no vanilla/ chocolate or strawberry in it and is probably not even an icecream either. They conspire to hide this information by using numbers on the back of the package. There are thousands of daily examples of conspiracy big and small, some vastly significant others irrelevant. As a society it needs conspiracies and illusions because if there was an outbreak of truth it could not survive in its current form.

Charles Drago
03-27-2009, 02:30 AM
So lately I've replied "oh you're one of those coincidence theorists."

This is tantamount to surrender insofar as it implicitly levels the playing field for our truth and their lies.

Speaking only of the JFK assassination: Conspiracy is not a "theory." It is a fact.

To reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

If we are dealing with an individual who does not have reasonable access to the evidence, then we are obliged to begin our recitation of how things happened in Dallas with something along the lines of, "What you are about to learn is no longer subject to debate. It is historical truth. It is not my 'opinion' or my 'belief' that JFK died at the hands of conspirators. It is my certain knowledge."

There is not a scintilla of legitimate evidence to support the LN theory/lie.

Absent the post-shooting actions of Mrs. Kennedy, there were no tender mercies in evidence in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. It is high time that we return the fire.

Remember to focus on the "how" question of the Kennedy murder -- answered simply and truthfully with, "by criminal conspirators."

As for the "who" and "why" queries: Honorable debate continues -- but the field of reasonable answers shrinks almost daily.

We are at war with the killers of John Fitzgerald Kennedy -- and with their accessories after the fact.

An equally easy-to-demonstrate conspiracy -- even for the controlled?

The Founding Fathers' plot.

The Lincoln hit.

The Reichstag fire.

Valkyrie.

The assassination of Yamamoto.

The looting of Banco Ambrosiano.

The Black Sox Scandal.

Watergate.

The assassination of Julius Caesar.

For starters.

Magda Hassan
03-27-2009, 02:37 AM
This is tantamount to surrender insofar as it implicitly levels the playing field for our truth and their lies.

Speaking only of the JFK assassination: Conspiracy is not a "theory." It is a fact.

To reiterate: Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK evidence who does not conclude conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

If we are dealing with an individual who does not have reasonable access to the evidence, then we are obliged to begin our recitation of how things happened in Dallas with something along the lines of, "What you are about to learn is no longer subject to debate. It is historical truth. It is not my 'opinion' or my 'belief' that JFK died at the hands of conspirators. It is my certain knowledge."

What you say Charles is true. I am sure Myra is referring in a general sense and looking for tactical options.

Charles Drago
03-27-2009, 02:47 AM
Magda,

I am suggesting just such a "tactical option:" the wielding of truth as a sermon to enlighten the ignorant and a weapon to bludgeon the guilty.

No more "debate" on questions long answered.

No more collegiality to the enemy.

We hold the moral and historical high ground.

On historical conspiracies, see David Mantik.

Myra Bronstein
03-27-2009, 02:48 AM
What you say Charles is true. I am sure Myra is referring in a general sense and looking for tactical options.

Looking for tactical options. That's what I'm doing. Looking for examples of conspiracies so blatant and undeniable that even the dullest of dullards will see them.

Thanks Maggie.

Magda Hassan
03-27-2009, 02:50 AM
Magda,

I am suggesting just such a "tactical option:" the wielding of truth as a sermon to enlighten the ignorant and a weapon to bludgeon the guilty.

No more "debate" on questions long answered.

No more collegiality to the enemy.

We hold the moral and historical high ground.

On historical conspiracies, see David Mantik.

I totally agree Charles, no more 'debate' for something long answered and we have better things to do with our energies and time.
I will check out Mantik. Sounds like it may be useful.

Mark Stapleton
03-27-2009, 03:15 AM
So lately I've replied "oh you're one of those coincidence theorists." The hope is to turn the tables and put them on the defensive and get them to see how absurd it is to consider everything a coincidence.





While I'm basically in agreement with Charles, I think this sounds like a good comeback, Myra.

I'll try it at the first opportunity, which won't be long.

Peter Presland
03-27-2009, 08:26 AM
Well I hesitate to cross swords with a founder member so early but I think Charles is being a little hard with the 'tantamount to surrender' bit. I take all his other points and agree 100% but - and it's a BIG BUT - as a tactical ploy to put ones potential dismisser on the defensive, I think it has great merit. IMH experience, most people who use the term 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a pejorative do so as a way of avoiding having to deal with potentially difficult and unpleasant issues; as a defense mechanism in other words - that's where they do not have an agenda of course. In either event I reckon it is still a good tactical device to take the wind out of their sales before moving to substantive debate.

David Guyatt
03-27-2009, 09:46 AM
The thing I find that is invariably overlooked by those who like to label every unpalatable controversy as a "conspiracy theory" is man's inherent nature to engage in conspiracies on a daily basis. And then pretend they hadn't.

In almost every human endeavour, from the boardroom to the pulpit, people conspire to achieve their aims. These rage from little conspiracies to big conspiracies. But this side of their daily lives is often - if not usually - suppressed which causes it to later leaps out elsewhere as a projection on others.

It is a case of the black spotty dog thinking it is a white Persian cat and then pointing fingers, holdings its belly and laughing, at all black spotty dogs that pass it by.

In such cases mirrors are feared.

Charles Drago
03-27-2009, 11:39 AM
In such cases mirrors are feared.

Peter,

Welcome to the DPF. And by all means continue to "cross swords" with me and anyone else hereabouts. Out of such duels, insight is gained.

Again, there is nothing to be gained from such a relatively passive and collegial response as that suggested by Myra (who I know to be one of Truth's boldest warriors). Perhaps we're arguing semantics here, but I think not.

If you'd like a sound byte response to, "So you're one of those 'conspiracy theorists'" accusations, I humbly suggest the following (within the context of a JFK discussion):

"Conspiracy in this case is not a 'theory,' but a fact. And anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who does not conclude that Kennedy was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. So how would you characterize your access to the evidence?"

Something sweet and endearing, like that ...

Peter Presland
03-27-2009, 04:09 PM
Thanks Charles

I'm impressed with the Francis Thompson Quote too. Another aficionado perhaps?

Don't misunderstand me though. He was a devout catholic whereas I regard much of the ritual surrounding religious practice as mumbo-jumbo in the same category as the invocations of the tribal witchdoctor. In other words I am very far from a 'true believer', let alone a practitioner, in any of the Great Faiths or Denominations - in the accepted sense of the words anyway.

But I have to say that Francis Thompson has been and remains one of the formative influences of my life and I regard his 'Hound of Heaven' as one of the greatest odes of the English language, right up there alongside Shakespeare. I can still recite the whole thing from memory - and occasionally do. Similarly with most of his poems on children, especially 'Daisy' and The Poppy'; anyone who can read and absorb either without getting at least the hint of a tear in the eye is .... well shall we just say not somebody I would likely get on with too well for long. I find it strange that he is so little known, with practically nothing he wrote available in the current book catalogue - other than anthologies of course.

Sorry for veering off-topic but a reply seemed the appropriate place to mention it.

Charles Drago
03-27-2009, 07:22 PM
Peter,

I'm not nearly as versed in Thompson as I'd like to be.

So as not to take over this thread, I urge you to visit our "Art" page and go into detail.

Thanks for the enlightening post And by the by, I'm with you on the organized religions business.

Charles

Myra Bronstein
03-28-2009, 05:25 AM
Well I hesitate to cross swords with a founder member so early but I think Charles is being a little hard with the 'tantamount to surrender' bit. I take all his other points and agree 100% but - and it's a BIG BUT - as a tactical ploy to put ones potential dismisser on the defensive, I think it has great merit. IMH experience, most people who use the term 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a pejorative do so as a way of avoiding having to deal with potentially difficult and unpleasant issues; as a defense mechanism in other words - that's where they do not have an agenda of course. In either event I reckon it is still a good tactical device to take the wind out of their sales before moving to substantive debate.

That's exactly the case Peter. Once they affix the conspiracy theorist label to me, which happens shortly after I mention the plot to kill President Kennedy (or the other sixties political assassinations), they're no longer willing to listen. I might as well be standing there in a tin foil hat because that's what they're seeing when they look at me.

Immediately accusing them of being a "coincidence theorist" is meant to turn the tables and put them on the defensive, and show how silly the all or nothing mentality is.

If they can shake off the decades of programming that has told them to tune out talk of conspiracies then it's worth it to talk facts. To, as you say, move on to substantive debate. Otherwise they just won't be receptive.

People are terrified of being in a room with a "conspiracy theorist." At least Americans are. They're rather be stuck on an elevator with Typhoid Mary.

Are people in other countries as freaked out by "conspiracy theorists"?

Myra Bronstein
03-28-2009, 05:26 AM
...
Again, there is nothing to be gained from such a relatively passive and collegial response as that suggested by Myra (who I know to be one of Truth's boldest warriors). ...

Thanks Charlie.

Myra Bronstein
04-01-2009, 02:44 AM
Great exchange on Democratic Underground, a site that has not historically welcomed free thinking researchers.

Member "Time for change" posted a great essay here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5361126

Which was promptly dismissed by someone with this post:

"Tin Foil Hat Much???"

Here's the follow up that I applaud:

"10. I've had it with this phrase "Tin Foil Hat" being used to try to shut down debate.

If you have something to say about the OP, say it. You don't agree with it? You have some other explanation for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld's apparent immunity from prosecution, or for the continued War on Iraq, or for the other points raised, regarding the quite visible limits on Obama's power? Say it. Give your perspective. But don't put down someone else's thoughtful post with this all-purpose "shut the fuck up" phrase. Please. You don't think there's any kind of conspiracy, and it's just accident and coincidence that a few rich people are being given trillions of dollars of future taxpayers' money with virtually no strings attached? You think the continued occupation of Iraq is not a major breach of contract between Obama and the American people, requiring a better explanation than he has given? You think these things were not planned by anybody, and that Obama's apparent powerlessness to undo them are not worthy of notice or discussion? Okay. I can argue with you--and so could Time for Change--on those points. But calling it "Tin Foil Hat" and then running away, is kind of like a kid throwing rock. It's the way Rush Limbaugh argues. Throw the rock, and cut off any callers who might disagree. "How great is that?Someone who is rejecting the social programming that tells us when someone acusses us of being conspiracy theorists we have to slink away mortally wounded.The come back got a good response too, e.g.:

"21. Thank you Peace Patriot -- As you say, using phrases like that do indeed serve to cut off

meaningful discussion.

That's exactly what TPTB want. Nobody uses that phrase more than them and their followers. They use it precisely for the purpose of cutting off discussion and marginalizing those who pose a threat to them through independent thought. Independent thought is enemy # 1 for those who seek to maintain their ill-gotten power."

Point being, go on the offensive not the defensivewhen this tactic is attempted.

"45. Only in America

do large swaths of the under-eductated population believe that conspiracies never happen in big business and government dealings. Everybody else knows full well that conspiring to do one thing while proclaiming another is the usual routine.

Time to expose this canard as part of a decades-long and very successful CIA disinformation campaign."I'm surprised the mods of DU will permit such a free and open exchange of ideas. Usually they relegate any post not fawning over Democrats to the conspiracy cellar where the crazy Aunt is hidden. They do not even allow discussion of President Kennedy's murder.

Peter Lemkin
04-01-2009, 06:40 AM
Are people in other countries as freaked out by "conspiracy theorists"?

I've lived longterm in five countries and visited or met persons from another 50 or so. Only the English-speaking countries seem so upset by the idea, the wealthier and better [sic] educated in Western Europe sometimes share this idea, but MUCH less than in the US. America who is #1 on this. I believe it is all due to the propaganda line of Empire and we're the ones with the (crumbling) empire now.

Magda Hassan
04-11-2009, 01:47 AM
Time For a Closer Look

By Michael Gaddy

April 09, 2009 "Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy55.html)" -- For several decades the state and its willing accomplices in the media and talk radio have marginalized and demonized anyone who alleges involvement of the state in illegal activities or conspiracies to provide false information to support its illegal wars and other agendas. Those who do so are referred to as "conspiracy nuts" or in the case of Rush Limbaugh, Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society members. (K.O.O.K.S) To believe the state is never involved in illegal conspiracies would require one to believe the state incapable of criminal behavior and Julius Caesar was killed in a random walk-by knifing.
A theory is defined as a guess or conjecture; therefore, once one piece of actual evidence is discovered, a theory no longer exists; it becomes a possibility. The problem Tin-foil hatters face is the lack of any subjective review of that evidence. The state is always in charge of "officially" discovering evidence. When those outside of the state’s influence discover evidence the government has somehow "overlooked," then an "impartial" panel is commissioned to investigate that evidence. The problem is, the impartial panel is always appointed by the state and populated by those with close connections to the state apparatus. Need I say more than the 9/11 Commission, or the Commission led by former Senator John Danforth tasked with investigating the tragedy called Waco?
Even in the event these commissions find wrongdoing by state employees, there are never any prosecutions of those responsible, even when the crime they commit is murder. FBI Agent Lon Horiuchi is a great example (http://www.zpub.com/notes/fbi-shame.html). Therefore, it is obvious those who represent the state operate with impunity and/or the state sanctioned "license to kill."
Perhaps the state believes only private citizens are capable of carrying out criminal conspiracies; after all, over 40% of those in federal custody are there for "conspiracy" to commit a crime. But when one mentions the state and criminals, are they not being redundant?
Lately, I have become increasingly skeptical of the timing and circumstances surrounding mass shootings. Any investigator worth his/her salt would question how, within a short time of the state indicating its intention of prohibiting the sale of a certain type firearm, a mass murder occurs in which that type weapon is used.

A prudent individual, unencumbered with emotional or financial connections to the state, cannot logically ignore the similarities in many of these mass shootings.
First, there is the insane and totally explained phenomena of a person becoming angry at someone or something, and then randomly killing people they do not know.
Second, is the almost universal use of mind-altering drugs by the perpetrators of these heinous crimes? Almost all of those involved in school shootings were taking, or had just stopped taking, drugs such as Prozac or Ritalin.
Third, is the fact a great number of the shooters kill themselves after committing their heinous crimes?
Fourth, when the mass shooting does not fit the above profile, the state uses the incident to claim, as they did in the shooting this weekend in Pennsylvania, that the perpetrator feared the state was going to take his guns. This certainly aids the state in its efforts to paint all that are concerned about the possible loss of freedoms and encroachments on the 2A as potential killers and threats to society.
Has the state gained from any of these very suspicious shootings? Of course they have.
After the political assassinations in the 1960s, the state, operating with the fear and outrage of the public, was able to foist on the America the wonderful 1968 Gun Control Act, a law taken almost word for word from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. (http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm) Former NRA President Charlton Heston’s involvement in the promotion of this vile law (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/moses-1.htm) is a story in itself.
While there are many writers who believe the state is presently too concerned with the economy to concentrate on laws prohibiting the private ownership of firearms, I believe, that because of the economy, the state will be forced to actively pursue draconian firearms legislation as a priority.
As so eloquently stated by many of the economists at LRC (http://www.mises.org/events/113), the current actions taken by the government to shore up the economy are all destined to fail. The current bailouts will fill the pockets of those who support and control the state and do nothing but lead to continued unemployment and financial chaos in this country and the world. The coming financial chaos will lead to civil unrest on a huge scale. Those who have been living on the producers in this society have been led to believe (by the state) they are entitled to the property of others and will take whatever action they deem necessary to secure it.
When millions are unemployed and businesses are failing in greater numbers than today, the state will be forced to seek other methods of revenue collection. If there were to be enacted a federal property owner’s tax, and seizures of private property were initiated to supplement the lack of collected revenue to run the state and its empire, state representatives sent to seize the property would prefer unarmed victims. The state will take the necessary steps to protect its revenue collection actions. If not, then why do we have armed IRS agents (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/30/us/3-businessmen-testify-of-armed-raids-by-irs.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)?
Is the state capable of killing to achieve its goals? One could always ask Randy Weaver and the Waco survivors, not to mention the families of tens of thousands of soldiers and millions of Vietnamese and Iraqis.
In future writings I will detail the similarities of mass killings perpetrated by Charles Whitman, Patrick Purdy, Klebold and Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, and Jiverly Wong, and the evidence that takes state involvement from guess and conjecture to a possibility.

Michael Gaddy [send him mail (michael.d.gaddy@gmail.com)], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Magda Hassan
04-11-2009, 12:11 PM
Hi Evan, Welcome back. Twice in one day, hey? Well I'm pleased you enjoy hanging out so much here during your spare time.

Did you report Evan Marshall for not having the required photo? Make him invisible? Disappear his posts? Ban him until the he produces a photo you approve of? Or is it freedom of speech there? Or double standards?

Say hi to the folks in Nowra :wavey:

Peter Lemkin
04-11-2009, 12:39 PM
Brava! (In and of itself)

N.B. Technology is a two-edged sword.......something even the 'Borg' have to admit.....

Charles Drago
04-11-2009, 01:54 PM
Hi Evan. Well I'm pleased you enjoy hanging out so much here during your spare time.


No quite accurate, Magda.

He's on duty.

Myra Bronstein
04-11-2009, 03:51 PM
Hi Evan, Welcome back. Twice in one day, hey? Well I'm pleased you enjoy hanging out so much here during your spare time.

Did you report Evan Marshall for not having the required photo? Make him invisible? Disappear his posts? Ban him until the he produces a photo you approve of? Or is it freedom of speech there? Or double standards?

Say hi to the folks in Nowra :wavey:

:laugh: Hey EvanS. I damn near got your IP memorized I see it so often. Feel free to take me up on my photoshopping offer:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14219

After all, it is so important that you keep up appearances there.

Myra Bronstein
04-11-2009, 03:51 PM
Hi Evan. Well I'm pleased you enjoy hanging out so much here during your spare time.


No quite accurate, Magda.

He's on duty.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Magda Hassan
04-11-2009, 04:00 PM
I don't know but I just keep getting this feeling that some one is watching me. That I am being followed. :laugh::laugh::laugh: But that would make me a conspiracy theorist wouldn't it?

Myra Bronstein
05-12-2009, 04:55 PM
The Grand Unified Coincidence Theory is given below in its entirety.

snip>--

"There is no such thing as a plot or conspiracy and never has been in the history of the world."

snip>--

Oh yeah, that makes more sense than ANY conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:

Ed Jewett
05-27-2009, 06:46 AM
Boy do I 'get' this topic... I'm a wounded veteran. Aside from the online scorn, I've also had it personally, including the psychiatric angle. Several thoughts come to mind:

1) Give them David Ray Griffin's argument that 'the official story' of 9/11 is itself a conspiracy theory.

2) Provide for them some information about laws dealing with conspiracy, such as the RICO act.

3) Point out noted others who have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion .. particularly useful in 9/11 when you can parade in front of them the names, pictures and statements of highly-decorated conservative Marine combat air pilots who have also served as assistant secretary of defense who say that 'that dog don't hunt'.

4) Be relentless in putting before them the evidence, the logic, the research, etc. Assemble little packets of 'goodies', like a sampling of chocolate morsels, for them to consider. Keep them updated on forthcoming new information, insights, research, books, etc.

Bullets do not take left-hand turns en route to the target. The upper third of 100-story skyscrapers do not twist and begin to fall and then suddenly turn into a cloud of dust. Show them, as Griffin has done so well on the topic of 9/11, how the cover-up has been handled.

They haven't done their homework; do it for them.

They are in denial; be gentle, and explain that lots of others have been as well, and that it is a natural reaction to disbelieve the horror of it. One thing that has helped in one personal case is that, as time has evolved, events have shown an emerging truth; when your predictions as an observer of deep politics start to come true, they start to give you a little more credibility.

Begin to unplug from the system, and show others how to stop giving 'them' the attention, energy, funds and support they need.

As Fitts would say, starve the tapeworm.

Dawn Meredith
05-27-2009, 11:58 AM
Boy do I 'get' this topic... I'm a wounded veteran. Aside from the online scorn, I've also had it personally, including the psychiatric angle. Bullets do not take left-hand turns en route to the target. The upper third of 100-story skyscrapers do not twist and begin to fall and then suddenly turn into a cloud of dust. Show them, as Griffin has done so well on the topic of 9/11, how the cover-up has been handled.

They haven't done their homework; do it for them.

They are in denial; be gentle, and explain that lots of others have been as well, and that it is a natural reaction to disbelieve the horror of it. One thing that has helped in one personal case is that, as time has evolved, events have shown an emerging truth; when your predictions as an observer of deep politics start to come true, they start to give you a little more credibility.

Begin to unplug from the system, and show others how to stop giving 'them' the attention, energy, funds and support they need.

As Fitts would say, starve the tapeworm.

Welcome Ed.
I too have been at this a very long time and with the same results, in most cases. People are in denial because they want to be. One example: In 1986 I was a partner in a small law firm in W. Newton Ma. One evening I had dinner with the owner of the firm and brought him back to my home to watch a JFK assassination documentary "The Killing of JFK". H. was very intrigued, mind blown, and emotional asking "what are we going to DO about this? But the next morning at the office it was as if the evening before had not occurred. This has mostly been my experience. People will listen patiently, (eyes rolled), or read something short, or even ONE book but its rare the person becomes concerned with historical truth and justice. I have been trying with my college best friend since 1973 who still calls it "YOUR truth" Denial beyond the pale. And he adored JFK. Discussing 9-11, or CIA ownership of the press (eg) is met with derision.
Dawn

Ed Jewett
05-27-2009, 05:07 PM
Dawn:

It is indeed amazing, especially considering the availability of material in book format, via the Internet, via video, etc. One of my personal favorites in the JFK story is the video of the Secret Service agent throwing up his hands in open question after being asked to "stand down" from the rear bumper just before it turned the fatal corner. One of the more amusing (and anger-creating) bits was the ABC 'simulation' that purported to prove that Oswald acted alone... a precursor, no doubt, of the NIST approach. Another is the photo of the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange meeting with one of the kingpins of the Colombia cocaine trade. I did my on-site project in TV news production visiting and observing the day's production of an ABC-TV newscast during the Vietnam war (I assume you all know the roots of ABC-TV News, Capital Cities, and one Bill Casey -- Reagan's CIA director) and caught the quiet, surreptitious discussions between the producers and someone in Washington.

So I have taken (with quite uncertain results) the tactic of 'putting out there' the discussions, material, etc. that examines the CIA's infiltration of the media, the Bernaysian approach, and other ways in which the media have been 'exposed', as well as the psychology/neuroscience of the human mind, so that people can see how they have been fooled, and how they have easily accepted that which has been placed so quietly and secretly in front of them as 'fact'. The study of trauma, repetition, and re-programming of the mind also lends some clues. See the CIA's work on MK-Ultra et al. This also asks questions about the repeated showing of the Zapruder film clips (the film itself and what it purports to show a controversy in its own right), as well as the repeated viewings of the building collapses on 9/11.

But for many they do not want to see or face the challenges inherent in their seeing. Hence the discussion about "Eyes Wide Shut"?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Seeing becomes very upsetting to their lifestyle, their employment, their comfortable niche within the system that depends on their not seeing.

Ed Jewett
05-27-2009, 10:20 PM
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Use Parody To Wake the Sleeping Masses (http://www.washingtonsblogs.com/2009/05/war-is-peace.html)



Because some people are too stubborn or too stuck in dysfunctional thinking patterns to hear the truth even when it hits them over the head, I suggest that we try a different approach: parody.

When a comic, like Stephen Colbert, does satire -- an exaggeration of what's being said -- it can wake us up, so that we can see the truth and laugh at how we've been acting. That can give us the freedom to stop doing the same dumb thing and to try something new.

So put satirical slogans on stickers, emails and freeway blogs to snap people out of their coma, like (by way of example only):

The Only Way to Get Money Into the Hand of the Little Guy is To Give It To the Biggest Corporations!

The Golden Rule Is To Torture Others, Right?

Don't Reign In the Financial Giants . . . They've Done A Great Job of Stabilizing the Economy!

Be Very Afraid, But Don't Ask Questions . . . The Government Will Protect You If You're Good Little Boys and Girls

Everything Is Fine With the Economy . . . and Santa Claus is Real

Detaining People Forever Without a Trial Is The Way To Protect Our System of Justice

Obama Appointed The People Who Got Us Into The Economic Crisis to the Top Economic Posts ... Because They Know What They're Doing

In Order to Protect Our American Values, We Have to Become Worse Than Our Enemies and Throw Away Our American Values

The Government is Giving Trillions of Our Taxpayer Dollars to Giant Corporations . . . But Only a Traitor Would Ask Where That Money is Going

The Government Lied About Iraq, The Government Lied To You About Torture The Government Would NEVER Lie To You

Torture Protects Us By Making the Whole World Love and Respect Us

Obama Is Bringing Change By Doing The Same Old Things

The 9/11 Commission Said the Government Lied About What Happened . . . They Must Be Conspiracy Theorists!

The Constitution is a Banned Document, Don't Read It

The Founding Fathers Were Terrorists, Don't Listen to Them
Good luck waking people up . . . and have some fun doing it.

If you think of good parody statements, share it with others by posting a comment.

Magda Hassan
05-27-2009, 11:55 PM
:laugh: :hahaha:
Humour is a great way to get a message across.
And a very warm welcome Ed!

Ed Jewett
05-28-2009, 07:51 PM
:laugh: :hahaha:
Humour is a great way to get a message across.
And a very warm welcome Ed!

Why, thank you, ma'am. 'Tis a pleasure to be here.

Magda Hassan
06-04-2009, 01:38 AM
I came across this rather great piece by Joel van der Reijden on Disinformation and how to recognize it and counter it.

Recognizing disinformation in the media
Twenty-six ways to slander and intimidate conspiracy advocates
"If we had met five years ago, you wouldn't have found a more staunch defender of the newspaper industry than me. And then I wrote some stories that made me realize how sadly misplaced my bliss has been. The reason I'd enjoyed such smooth sailing for so long hadn't been, as I'd assumed, because I was careful and diligent and good at my job... The truth was that, in all those years, I hadn't written anything important enough to suppress."
- 2002, Gary Webb, 'Into the Buzzsaw', as repeated by his fellow investigative journalist Nick Schou in the book 'Kill the Messenger' (p. 12). Webb's career was ruined after he published a series of articles tying the CIA to drug trafficking. He never recovered from the affair and ultimately killed himself.
"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility... In the primitive simplicity of [the mind of the masses] they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. "
- 1926, Adolf Hitler, 'Mein Kampf', p. 472
About a year ago something began to dawn on me, and that is the fact that many people don't recognize media bias or disinformation very well. You'd be surprised at how many people can read an article about any given conspiracy topic and not recognize it when facts are being selectively presented, or when the conspiracy point-of-view is discouraged with jokes, personal attacks or unrealistic counter-arguments. This needs to change.
Below you will find 26 tactics that can, and have, been used by the media against people advocating conspiracies. I've been gathering them over the course of a year by paying attention to newspaper, magazine and tv reports about controversial issues.
The purpose of this article is two-fold :


It will allow anyone to better recognize media bias and media disinformation;
It provides people with a checklist they can use to prepare themselves in case they are invited for an interview and suspect to be ridiculed.

As for the second argument, think of the ever increasing amount of bloggers, conspiracy-website owners (this author has been contacted, for example) and political activists. Other examples are upcoming investigative authors, potential whistleblowers and basically anyone prominent who thinks about speaking out in support of a certain conspiracy.


List of tactics including additional explanations (http://www.isgp.eu/disinformation/Recognizing_media_disinformation.htm#3)
List of tactics only (http://www.isgp.eu/disinformation/Recognizing_media_disinformation.htm#1)

Tactics used

1.
Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by questioning the mental state of conspiracy advocates and pretending they are outcasts of society whose opinions nobody cares about. Additional explanation: Insinuate that anyone interested in unfavorable subjects, which can even be as innocent as looking into the role of Bilderberg or the Trilateral Commission in the globalization process, is a complete nutter who needs his head examined. A subtler approach might be to pretend how we all get so tired of these people, for example by saying or writing, "Yes, I hear you thinking, here you have them again. But let's find out, what is it exactly that they want to convince us of this time?"
2.
Put the word "theory" behind the word "conspiracy", no matter how great the evidence, and preferably do this several times in the article to make the (supposedly) theoretical nature of the conspiracy really sink in.
Additional explanation: It's not unusual for a conspiracy advocate to use the word "conspiracy theorist" on himself, because somehow he has to set his ideas apart from the "coincidence theorist" or "human failure theorists". Followers of different ideas about history or science are often referred to as "theorists", and in those cases it has nothing to do with ridicule. However, misplaced or overuse of the term "conspiracy theory" will automatically prevent people from (openly) accepting this point of view because of the strong negative connotations attached to this term.
3.
Imply that conspiracy theories are literally made up out of thin air and that there never was any significant evidence to support any of them.
Additional explanation: Be as condescending as possible by taking on a parental role. Fill your news reports with words like "paranoid", "urban legend", "folklore", "myth", "fantasy", "imagination", "legend", "gullible", "hype", "hoax"., etc. Works better the more grades and authority you have.
4.
Present different pieces of the same conspiracy as independently made up and conflicting conspiracy theories.
Additional explanation: This will result in people thinking that conspiracy theorists are in some kind of turf war, trying to protect their own little pet theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination is a great example. The overall theory most researchers agree on is that the CIA, largely through the mafia and anti-Castro militants, and with support of some important businessmen, was behind the assassination. However, skeptics have usually broken this overall theory in four separate pieces: theory 1: the CIA did it; theory 2: the mafia did it; theory 3: anti-Castro militants did it; or theory 4: big business did it. This is a ridiculous approach of course. Here's another example from Belgium which relates to the Dutroux affair: February 2, 2005, Nieuwsblad, 'Ze zijn vermoord maar door wie?' ('They have been murdered, but by whom?'):

"Father Dellaert was grilled. Her [Carine's] mother, of whom he had divorced, threw some additional oil on the fire by claiming that he [the father] had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. Additionally the man had already been convicted once for sexual affairs. But he kept denying. Still, three months later he was in jail. But because of a lack of evidence justice had to let him go. Regina Louf, also known as X1, made up another story: she would have met Carine during sex parties."

Here you have another world class piece of disinformation on which details can be read in PEHI's 'Beyond the Dutroux affair (http://www.isgp.eu/dutroux/Belgian_X_dossiers_of_the_Dutroux_affair.htm)' article. What's important here is: A) the tone of the sentence that is underlined ("made up"), and B) the fact that X1's story is not at all incompatible with the claims of Carine Dellaert's mother. The father had been doing the abuse when the mother was away--which was most of the time--and also allowed his daughter to be abused by his circle of friends. This information came from Carine's former closest friend, who was ignored by newspapers and investigators. They also ignored all evidence showing that X1 had known Carine. In other words, this newspaper presented two witnesses with apparently conflicting testimonies, while in reality they described two aspects of the same crime.
5.
Carefully select the evidence that is to be presented. Leave out anything that cannot be explained. Focus on evidence that is easy to discredit, or at the very least, inconclusive.
Additional explanation: This is one of the most common and fundamental tactics used. The fact that the majority of the conspiracy community might reject a certain theory, or is aware of much stronger evidence, doesn't matter to the media, because the general public is unaware of that and has no time or interest to check the facts for themselves. This tactic might backfire during live interviews, unless a conspiracy theorist is picked who supports the theory that will be used to discredit the entire community.

A great example of bogus claims continually being repeated and "discredited" by the media are the no-plane and pod theories of 9/11. Anyone who really does his homework knows there are many other aspects of 9/11 that are much more interesting--not to mention, true. Other examples might be reports that tie criticism on today's Zionist Lobby to holocaust denial, or people who believe in UFOs to fake Moon landings.

If you're attacking an individual, and not a whole group, dig up every mistake in his work, however small, and discuss these flaws one after another. It will seem to most people the author's work is riddled with mistakes, while in reality 98 or 99 percent might be perfectly accurate, including the overall picture.
6.
As a talk-show host, don't let any person arguing in favor of a conspiracy speak uninterrupted for even one minute.
Additional explanation: As soon as the person interviewed tries to bring up a serious piece of evidence, immediately counter with a joke, a seemingly damning counter-argument (there's no time to further discuss anyway) or simply change the subject. Keep the interview nice and short so there's no time to go into any kind of detail.
7.
For interviews, preferably pick prominent individuals from the conspiracy movement who either have no credentials or irrelevant credentials. Place these conspiracy theorists against academics and other experts who have impeccable credentials.
Additional explanation: When doing basic research, in many cases a lower-educated person with some experience can do just as good of a job as someone who has his M.A. or Ph.D. However, highly-educated, respected individuals interviewed by the media are usually trusted on their word while it's necessary for anyone else to step by step go over all the evidence. There's seldom any time for the latter approach so the lower-educated conspiracy advocate finds himself in a severely disadvantaged position.
8.
During video interviews, allow the skeptics to present themselves more properly than the conspiracy advocates.
Additional explanation: Interview conspiracy theorists on video from angles that make them look a bit awkward, like really up close to show off that wart, or a little bit from below so we can all enjoy those nose hairs. Also, limit their make up, don't ask them to shave, and if possible, interview them in plain, simple clothes. Do the interview in an environment which further diminishes credibility, like a messy living room or next to a replica of a grey alien in a UFO museum. In contrast, interview the skeptical "experts" from their most affectionate angle with suit and tie in a nice and comfortable place. Make sure their make up is perfect.
9.
Quote from generally respected government investigating committees and present their conclusions as gospel.
Additional explanation: If anyone asks or says that these government committees are misrepresenting the evidence, instead of listening to the arguments the reaction will be along the lines of, "So everybody is in on it?", if needed followed by "Impeccable expert A, B and C disagree with you." After that the topic is steered away in a different direction. As stated in point seven: "Highly-educated, respected individuals [or institutes] interviewed by the media are usually trusted on their word while it's necessary for anyone else to step by step go over all the evidence. There's seldom any time for the latter approach so the [in this case high or low-educated] conspiracy advocate finds himself in a severely disadvantaged position."
10.
Automatically dismiss articles from conspiracy advocates as "unreliable", no matter how well-sourced these articles are. Additional explanation: Don't go into the specific issues raised in the article. If the promoter of the article asks you to look at these issues, just ignore him and keep coming back to the fact the author of the article is "not reliable".
11.
Always question the motives of conspiracy theorists. Additional explanation: Any conspiracy writer who has any kind of income from his writings can be accused of being in it for the money. Another popular accusation is that conspiracy theorists are anti-semites and have the same beliefs as fundamentalist Arabs. The latter tactic has been especially popular after 9/11 (for example, the false claim that thousands of Jews were aware of the WTC attack) and the London bombings (there was a report that one of the bombers was a 9/11 skeptic).
12.
Make the well known claim that everybody is in on the conspiracy.
Additional explanation: This can be formulated as a question or as a sarcastic comment, in both cases serving to ridicule and discredit the unprepared interviewee.
13.
Make a few jokes, usually involving little green men, Elvis, the grassy knoll, and aliens. Then there also is the classic "out to get you" comment. Additional explanation: Jokes like these only serve to make conspiracy advocates uncomfortable by ridiculing them and to intimidate anyone from looking into possible conspiracies. Reading some of the articles of skeptics, these days it apparently also seems possible to suggest that the average conspiracy theorist really believes claims that Elvis was abducted by aliens. It should be quite obvious that in reality this belief is (virtually?) non-existent. December 18, 2000, BBC, 'Conspiracy Theories': "This [the National Enquirer] is the natural reading matter for those who sincerely believe that Elvis was abducted by aliens, this being more comforting than the traditional explanation that he simply took too many drugs."
14.
Ask if the conspiracy advocate believes in any other (unrelated) conspiracies. Additional explanation: For example, when you interview someone who is skeptical about the official 9/11 story, ask him about UFOs; or vice versa. Even if the person only states he's open to the other conspiracy, it can be used to discredit him in the eyes of many people; even more so in follow-up reports. Example: "Person X is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. He also recently stated he believes in flying saucers."
15.
Make the claim that governments can't keep secrets. Additional explanation: In a way governments and intelligence agencies do have a hard time keeping secrets, especially in the West. There are a few "buts", however. First of all, a huge amount of coverage over an extended period is needed for a large enough portion of the public to change their beliefs or even take action. One or two one-time reports, even in a large newspaper, are not going to change anything, certainly not in the long term. People will forget or doubt themselves if the message is not continually repeated and eventually taught at home by their parents or at school.

Secondly, counter measures to prevent exposure are usually in proportion to the sensitivity of the secret. Just by looking at the amount of investigators, witnesses and whistleblowers who have been intimidated or suicided over the years, it appears that the most sensitive secrets are highest-level involvement in the international drug trade, arms trade, assassinations, pedophile networks and terrorism, or, on a hardly lighter note, "legal" deep black programs involving extremely high technology. Without the internet we would still be absolutely clueless as to what is going on at this level. At least we now have a vague idea, even though there's still much that needs to be uncovered. None of these topics are discussed in the mainstream press or tv.

And third, in addition to intimidation and assassination, psychological warfare and disinformation have been used to prevent the public from finding out about the deepest secrets and to discourage anyone from looking into them in the first place. Ridicule is a powerful weapon.
16.
Repeat the claim that we have free press because scandals are regularly exposed. Additional explanation: Virtually everything can be discussed in the media except a handful of topics that are really important. If one allies himself with the Left it's possible, of course, to expose the Right to some extent, and vice verse, but it's virtually impossible to publish a serious article about the 9/11 Truth movement, government assassinations and terrorism, CIA drug imports, high level pedophile rings, or other extremely sensitive stuff which will change people's whole concept of government. This kind of stuff is just not done. And if you are uniquely in the possession of evidence that relates to some of the examples above, you run a good risk of becoming a victim of harassment, intimidation, financial ruining, and you could well end up dead.

17.
As soon as a conspiracy theorist brings up witness testimony, counter with the standard argument that eyewitness testimony is "notoriously unreliable".
Additional explanation: A former fundamentalist Christian turned professional debunker, Michael Shermer, took this argument to the limit during a July 2007 debate about UFOs on the Larry King Show. Even after others present told him that numerous military officers and pilots have claimed to have seen UFOs, and that the Phoenix Lights incident involved thousands of witnesses who all saw the same thing, Shermer just countered with: "... Eyewitness testimony is not all that reliable... Trained observers are no better than just regular observers."
18.
When aspects of the permanent government have slowly been exposed over the years, oversimplify by stating this or that conspiracy theory "has had its best time".
Additional explanation: There are many reasonable questions that could be asked, like why the mainstream media has not been the one responsible for shedding light on the "conspiracy" they just mentioned, or why they don't expand on the information now the word has come out, or if there are similar conspiracies going on. Of course, some conspiracies are never mentioned, so this argument doesn't apply to them. The exposure we're talking about here mainly deals with Bilderberg and the Bohemian Grove, or more recently, the 1001 Club and Le Cercle.
19.
Start out with, or only report, conclusions, and leave out most, if not all, evidence that this conclusion has been based on. Also leave out all nuances brought up by the person that has been interviewed.
Additional explanation: Generally only works with pre-recorded interviews or a review of a person's work. As the conclusions that must be drawn from conspiracies or conspiracy theories are usually quite disturbing, especially to someone never exposed to this point of view, this tactic is one of the most effective in discrediting even men and women with impeccable credentials. Here's an example, a paraphrase from a recent Dutch article on Daniel Estulin's Bilderberg book (lost the article, which, by the way, was the inspiration for this article): "Estulin warns us that there's a plan for global dictatorship in which a great portion of the world's population will be exterminated. Those who survive will be implanted with a microchip in their brain." I can't tell if it's a good or a bad book, because I've not read it, but the intention of the newspaper is clear. Some day another example might be: "PEHI is claiming that leading officials in government (including prime ministers), business, the judiciary and intelligence are involved in illegal arms trafficking, drug running, pedophilia and terrorist attacks on their own population." What casual reader is going to believe that? It must be said though that PEHI has a significant advantage over book writers, because this site is freely accessible to everyone, so it's basically very easy for people to take a peek and check some of the facts reported in the newspapers.
20.
Oversimplify by stating that the official head of state must have been directly involved in planning and overseeing the conspiracy. Don't allow the subject to explain the transnational, largely privatized, permanent government in any coherent way.
Additional explanation: The permanent government, consisting of many different elements in business, politics, the judiciary, intelligence, the military, private clubs, and think tanks, seems to be the backbone of every conspiracy. Its existence is always ignored or denied, which probably has a lot to do with the major media networks belonging to this same government.
21.
Claim that the internet is responsible for the recent increase in conspiracy theories, because frothing conspiracy theorists are hyping each other up in chat rooms and message boards.
Additional explanation: It's true, of course, that the internet is responsible for the huge increase in awareness of conspiracies, the simple reason being that alternative theories are just as accessible on the net as the lies pushed by the government and mainstream media. However, anyone with a (conspiracy) site can tell you that links posted on forums will not get you many hits, as there always are a few individuals who drive everyone away by posting lengthy, irrational, and often abusive statements 24 hours a day. Skeptics will claim otherwise, but in reality few want to be associated with some of these forum people, including the average conspiracy-oriented person. Chat rooms are often private and generate even less hits. Most people use the internet to find and order books, read (alternative) news sites and use Google and Wikipedia to find additional information. That's it.
22.
Have a conspiracy theorist argue with a victim of a conspiracy who actually doesn't believe in the conspiracy. Even better, the victim is disabled and dying.
Additional explanation: Apparently a relatively new tactic, which was used by FOX News' Planet Mancow in November 2006 when they confronted Kevin Smith, producer of Infowars and Prisonplanet, with the disabled and dying 9/11 firefighter Brian Harvey. During the planning and recording of the show Planet Mancow used numerous other disinformation tactics, all of which have been described here
23.
When covering demonstrations, mainly focus on the eccentric and the violent. Ignore all the presentable, calm and intelligent demonstrators. Additional explanation: It must be said that in anti-globalist (mainly US conservatives) or different-globalist (mainly liberals, including in Europe) demonstrations there's usually no shortage of eccentric individuals the media can pick from. On the other hand, there also are many knowledgeable individuals in government and business who have no interest in going to the streets with a bullhorn and a banner, but can very articulately explain what the present globalization process is all about and what is wrong with it. However, these are the people the media likes to ignore.

Additional note: There's also some evidence that small, extreme left wing groups are used to disrupt peaceful demonstrations, followed by a heavy crackdown on all demonstrators (the 1999 WTO negotiations in Seattle for example). This, of course, gives the media yet another opportunity to further stereotype the anti-globalist and different-globalist crowds as uneducated, left-wing nutjobs.
24.
Don't write about the topics conspiracy theorists bring up. Instead, write about conspiracy theorists. Additional explanation: A great example is when this author was approached by a journalist of a major Dutch newspaper in mid 2007. The whole email read, "Can I call you some time about your PEHI website? Maybe I want to devote an article to it in Het Parool." The thing that immediately popped in my mind was, "Why write about my site? Do your own investigative article on Le Cercle, the 1001 (perfect for a Dutch investigator), the Pilgrims, or whatever. You don't need to know anything from or about me. The less you say about me the more credible you are." So I declined. And seeing the article some weeks later I certainly knew I had done the right thing. It was yet another superficial article about conspiracy theorists (evangelists; reincarnation therapists) and there was no investigative journalism to verify some of the more serious aspects of the conspiracy community. There was, of course, space reserved for talk about the 13 bloodlines of the Illuminati and Icke's lizards. What a surprise.
25.
See if you can link credible writers to not-so-credible writers. Additional explanation: Basically anything will do: a friendship, a compliment of one about the other, a reference in one of your works, etc. In the same Parool article mentioned in point 24, it was written that, "It is clear that Van der Reijden has let himself be inspired by David Icke... [lizards, blah, blah]" This is a really dubious statement, but the writer of the article can get away with it because at the bottom of my article it is mentioned that the first time I heard about Le Cercle was on a DVD of David Icke. Now, this cheap exploit can't really bother me, because the minute I put that minor acknowledgement there, even if it was with a good number of reservations about basically all of Icke's theories, I knew "skeptics" would sooner or later jump on it. And that's fine; anybody can visit my site and compare it to any newspaper articles written about me.

Now, I know I'm not a particularly credible writer, but you get the point.
26.
See if you can dig up some dirt on a prominent conspiracy advocate. Additional explanation: When it comes to politics, basically anything can be used against you: a criminal past, a few misdemeanors, dubious friends, having visited porn websites, cheated on your wife, a bitter ex-girlfriend, a son or daughter using drugs, etc. Personal attacks are the most often used against politicians because of their prominence, but they can also be used against conspiracy theorists.
Tactics without additional explanations


Subtly or not so subtly intimidate anyone who might be open to the possibility of a conspiracy by questioning the mental state of conspiracy advocates and pretending they are outcasts of society whose opinions nobody cares about.
Put the word "theory" behind the word "conspiracy", no matter how great the evidence, and preferably do this several times in the article to make the (supposedly) theoretical nature of the conspiracy really sink in.
Imply that conspiracy theories are literally made up out of thin air and that there never was any significant evidence to support any of them.
Present different pieces of the same conspiracy as independently made up and conflicting conspiracy theories.
Carefully select the evidence that is to be presented. Leave out anything that cannot be explained. Focus on evidence that is easy to discredit, or at the very least, inconclusive.
As a talk-show host, don't let any person arguing in favor of a conspiracy speak uninterrupted for even one minute.
For interviews, preferably pick prominent individuals from the conspiracy movement who either have no credentials or irrelevant credentials. Place these conspiracy theorists against academics and other experts who have impeccable credentials.
During video interviews, allow the skeptics to present themselves more properly than the conspiracy advocates.
Quote from generally respected government investigating committees and present their conclusions as gospel.
Automatically dismiss articles from conspiracy advocates as "unreliable", no matter how well-sourced these articles are.
Always question the motives of conspiracy theorists.
Make the well known claim that everybody is in on the conspiracy.
Make a few jokes, usually involving little green men, Elvis, the grassy knoll, and aliens. Then there also is the classic "out to get you" comment.
Ask if the conspiracy advocate believes in any other (unrelated) conspiracies.
Make the claim that governments can't keep secrets.
Repeat the claim that we have free press because scandals are regularly exposed.
As soon as a conspiracy theorist brings up witness testimony, counter with the standard argument that eyewitness testimony is "notoriously unreliable".
When aspects of the permanent government have slowly been exposed over the years, oversimplify by stating this or that conspiracy theory "has had its best time".
Start out with, or only report, conclusions, and leave out most, if not all, evidence that this conclusion has been based on. Also leave out all nuances brought up by the person that has been interviewed.
Oversimplify by stating that the official head of state must have been directly involved in planning and overseeing the conspiracy. Don't allow the subject to explain the transnational, largely privatized, permanent government in any coherent way.
Claim that the internet is responsible for the recent increase in conspiracy theories, because frothing conspiracy theorists are hyping each other up in chat rooms and message boards.
Have a conspiracy theorist argue with a victim of a conspiracy who actually doesn't believe in the conspiracy. Even better, the victim is disabled and dying.
When covering demonstrations, mainly focus on the eccentric and the violent. Ignore all the presentable, calm and intelligent demonstrators.
Don't write about the topics conspiracy theorists bring up. Instead, write about conspiracy theorists.
See if you can link credible writers to not-so-credible writers.
See if you can dig up some dirt on a prominent conspiracy advocate.

Author: Joël van der Reijden
Written: January 17, 2008

Ed Jewett
06-04-2009, 12:27 PM
Good stuff, Magda.

I will have to spend some serious time reading and digesting it.

Meanwhile, I posted a link to it within the section on PsyOps
[ http://z7.invisionfree.com/E_Pluribus_Unum/index.php?showforum=160 ] over at E Pluribus Unum. :tee:

David Guyatt
06-04-2009, 01:09 PM
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Use Parody To Wake the Sleeping Masses (http://www.washingtonsblogs.com/2009/05/war-is-peace.html)



Because some people are too stubborn or too stuck in dysfunctional thinking patterns to hear the truth even when it hits them over the head, I suggest that we try a different approach: parody.

When a comic, like Stephen Colbert, does satire -- an exaggeration of what's being said -- it can wake us up, so that we can see the truth and laugh at how we've been acting. That can give us the freedom to stop doing the same dumb thing and to try something new.

So put satirical slogans on stickers, emails and freeway blogs to snap people out of their coma, like (by way of example only):

The Only Way to Get Money Into the Hand of the Little Guy is To Give It To the Biggest Corporations!

The Golden Rule Is To Torture Others, Right?

Don't Reign In the Financial Giants . . . They've Done A Great Job of Stabilizing the Economy!

Be Very Afraid, But Don't Ask Questions . . . The Government Will Protect You If You're Good Little Boys and Girls

Everything Is Fine With the Economy . . . and Santa Claus is Real

Detaining People Forever Without a Trial Is The Way To Protect Our System of Justice

Obama Appointed The People Who Got Us Into The Economic Crisis to the Top Economic Posts ... Because They Know What They're Doing

In Order to Protect Our American Values, We Have to Become Worse Than Our Enemies and Throw Away Our American Values

The Government is Giving Trillions of Our Taxpayer Dollars to Giant Corporations . . . But Only a Traitor Would Ask Where That Money is Going

The Government Lied About Iraq, The Government Lied To You About Torture The Government Would NEVER Lie To You

Torture Protects Us By Making the Whole World Love and Respect Us

Obama Is Bringing Change By Doing The Same Old Things

The 9/11 Commission Said the Government Lied About What Happened . . . They Must Be Conspiracy Theorists!

The Constitution is a Banned Document, Don't Read It

The Founding Fathers Were Terrorists, Don't Listen to Them
Good luck waking people up . . . and have some fun doing it.

If you think of good parody statements, share it with others by posting a comment.

Nicely sums up the situation, I think. :)

Welcome Ed.

Ed Jewett
06-04-2009, 08:58 PM
Humor, parody and satire are great tools, and they are tough to create with a high-level of craftmanship, punch, efficacy and carrying/staying power, and luckily we have plenty of good models. One that comes readily to mind is the T-shirts I've seen with pictures of Native American warriors and the text "the original Homeland Security department".

This reminds me of the day after we were shoiwn the ancient and venerable documentary "Nanook of the North"; the very next day, we had the high school principal and superintendent in high amusement when they came to see what the ruckus was all about after we surprised our AP English teacher by improvised play-acting, at the very beginning of the class, of the newsmen Walter Crankit and Harry Unreasonable interviewing Nanook of the North. Irreverence is acerbic. The harpoon prop hung on the wall behind the teacher's desk for years.

The key question, I guess, is how much acid should be applied: certainly it should be enough to wear away the dull polish of mediated spin and lackadaisical attitude, just enough to show that there is really a nice wood grain of truth beneath all that wax and varnish, just enough to get people to begin to think, but not too much to get them to feel that the impetus for the irreverence is anything but love of people, community, a better possibility. Otherwise, they turn against you, harden and re-confirm their thought and allegiance, and strengthen their resolve.

Ed Jewett
06-04-2009, 09:55 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/06/28/Helmet_060628042316827_wideweb__300x457.jpg


"The Helmet of Horror" by Victor Pelevin, is based on the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur. The author is described on the flyleaf as "one of the most audacious of the younger generation of Russian writers". The work is translated by Andrew Bromfield.

Fom the front flyleaf: "When mythic Ariadne helped Theseus escape the Minotaur's labyrinth with the aid of a ball of thread, she set a precedent for the bewildered victims of a 21st century and Minotaur.

In this radical reinvention of the ancient story, the labyrinth exists again -- in the endless maze of the Internet. The only path through the alienated landscape lies in the threads trailing from chat rooms where strangers sit trapped and alone before their screens, assigned to the skewer aliases and commanded by the Helmet of Horror, the Minotaur himself.

Victor Pelevin has created a mesmerizing world where information is abundant and knowledge is ultimately unattainable. In a cyber age, is technology anything more than a myth itself?"

***


In regard to misinformation and disinformation campaigns:
From page 105:

The character nutscracker says:

"Used on its own, any one of the techniques used easy easy enough to spot. But if the methods are combined together in a subtle fashion and always applied in rotation at a level of intensity just on the borderline of perceptions, you get practically 100% precise manipulation combined with total imperceptibly."

Peter Presland
06-06-2009, 07:11 AM
On the subject of parody as an effective weapon; here's another superb example which rather made my day when I stumbled upon it here: (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2009/06/dieudonnes-anti-zionist-campaign-in.html)

"USA / Israel - The Axis of Goodness"

Make a good bumper-sticker I reckon. So jarringly absurd.

The above link is worth a look too - in the context of the European Parliament election campaign in France. It seems there are very serious anti-zionist stirrings which have the establishment absolutely terrified.

Ed Jewett
06-06-2009, 11:59 AM
Thanks, Peter, for the link, duly tucked away for exploration at a later time.

One of the things that has happened here is that I have opened a door for myself and others to additional perspective (always a good thing), from the UK and Europe and elsewhere, which can stream light and fresh air into the insularity of America and "our" self-proclaimed attitudes of exceptionality, of an untouchable being, beyond and above it all.

As for the bumpersticker, it's great, though there may be a problem in that some will see it and sell it as simple acceptable and obvious truth ...

unless, perhaps, it is linked to documented evidence of "badness", which isn't hard to find even if folks are scurrying around to make sure you can't see it, or that if you do, you will accept it with their spin.

Photography, for example, has captured the horrors of war since Matthew Brady, though that function also has gotten turned on its head in our new world of newspeak to become "war porn". One photo that comes to mind is of the missile-destroyed ambulance with the gaping hole right square in the middle of the red cross on top of the ambulance.

Paul Rigby
06-11-2009, 09:11 PM
I came across this rather great piece by Joel van der Reijden on Disinformation and how to recognize it and counter it.

Recognizing disinformation in the media
Twenty-six ways to slander and intimidate conspiracy advocates
January 17, 2008 [/SIZE]

Always worth quoting their own high-priests back at them:

Joseph Fouche:


“There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three.”

[Hubert Cole. Fouche: The Unprincipled Patriot (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd., 1971), p.140, PRO, FO 27/63.]

Dawn Meredith
05-21-2010, 07:24 PM
Great thread. Man this forum rocks. I am able to read online today due to the illness of a judge thus an all day court day was cancelled.

Since I last posted on this thread I am happy to report that an attorney friend- well actually we are in hot adversary mode the last few months- did finally read a book and one I consider the best: JFK and the Unspeakable, Why He Died and Why it maters". (James Douglas). She had never read on this subject before and it was lovely to see the scales fall from her eyes.

And I am finding facebook to be a valuable site to meet other like minded people, find and share great info. Thank God for the net. It truly IS educating people. Our numbers are growing , so I expect in due order the net to be "regulated" and it will be in the name of catching child rapists and the like. But we know it will be an effort to silence US, and the alternative media provided by sites like this!! So let's be vigilant. This IS war!
Dawn