| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PHayward
Uber Factoid
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 708
Location: Warwickshire, England.
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:32 am Post subject: Muddying the waters |
 |
|
Many of you will have watched the way powerful vested interests managed to turn the Internet - along with a large chunk of the British press - into an organon of Big Oil and King Coal. Comment threads were spammed, hate-mongering invective inserted into message threads everywhere. Around two million websites appeared to "debunk" climate science, and aggressively smear individual scientists. Hundreds of millions of dollars were pumped into a network of front groups, who then bombarded the media with op-eds, letters to the editor and other material, causing widespread public confusion.
Now here is something for you to ponder. If private companies can do so much to muddy the waters on the subject of climate change (just try Googling "Climategate") how much more successful would, say, the Central Intelligence Agency be if it were to set out to make the 9/11 truth movement look like a bunch of nutjobs?
It wouldn't be difficult. All they would need to do (and this is just me thinking aloud) would be to ensure that all the most visible websites claiming the attacks were an inside job, peddled wildly implausible theories perched on the thinest of evidence, so that anyone researching the topic would find it nearly impossible to separate truth from fiction.
None of us wants to believe that such a thing could happen in our own country.
But what makes you so sure?
| Quote: | Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama's closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama's head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs." In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites -- as well as other activist groups -- which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens' faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.
Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role." Sunstein's 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story's Daniel Tencer. |
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein
_________________
Paul.
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" - John Maynard Keynes
"Many good liars have no imagination at all; it's that which gives their lies such wide-eyed conviction" - Philip Pullman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Marvin Molotova
Veteran Factoid
Joined: 27 Oct 2008
Posts: 1562
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Em.... yes, some of us have been aware of this (and pointed out as much on this website) for years. And it isn't just a theory, it's a fact (the actual instructions issued to agents have been leaked to antiwar websites).
The first websites to be targeted were those created by US citizens - including relatives of those killed in the attacks - demanding a full criminal inquiry into the events of 9-11. Some of these websites disappeared mysteriously, while others were targeted by agents (mainly Israeli) with disinformation.
When websites appeared questioning the official version of events and suggesting that 9-11 may have been a conspiracy involving elements within the US government or intelligence services, Israeli volunteers were recruited to "haunt" these websites with instructions, not to post counter arguments (as this would immediately identify them as hostile), but to make "red herring" posts provoking lengthy discussions about trivial points. I know this is true because they targeted the Irish Anti War website, with which I was involved. They had an elaborate desktop alert system (courtesy of the Israeli Dept of Information) which notified them whenever discussions were started anywhere on the web that had to do with Israel or 9-11. Their job was to, as you say, enter the discussion and "muddy the waters". The system was codenamed "Megaphone" (because it would ensure that they had the loudest voice in any online debate).
In 2006, when Israel was getting "bad PR" over its slaughter of over 1,000 Lebanese women and children, it made the Megaphone system available via the websites of the World Union of Jewish Students, The Jewish Agency for Israel, the World Zionist Organization and various other pro-Israel organizations. You can download the Megaphone toolbar at:
http://giyus.org/
Here's a snippet from the GIYUS website:
| Quote: | Why do I need to report?
GIYUS.ORG spends a lot of effort tracking down online articles and surveys that members should see and act upon.
After installing the Megaphone application, you will receive alerts on these articles so that you can voice your opinion on them.
You can help even more! Report relevant articles and surveys to GIYUS.ORG and help Israel win the public opinion front. |
According to the GIYUS website, 40,000 Israel supporters have downloaded the Megaphone toolbar. But so have I : ) and I get a constant stream of "alerts" letting me know about online discussions in which Israel is coming in for criticism, or polls in which people are being asked to give their opinion of Israel. The aim, as the website itself clearly states, is to "help Israel win the public opinion front".
The advice to users is never to express a hostile viewpoint, but to create a diversion. In the case of 9-11 conspiracy websites where Israeli involvement is being discussed, the advice is to heap conspiracy upon conspiracy ad absurdum, thus discrediting the entire website, or the particular debate.
_________________
Marvo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ppnl
Regular Factoid
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 390
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Careful dude, you should learn a lesson from Bob Marks. If you look around and find that you don't like your most vocal supporter you should reexamine your position.
A conspiracy theory is built on misdirection the same way as a magic trick. Belief in conspiracy is more often based on suspension of disbelief rather than positive evidence. Magicians make a living on this phenomena. It is a very powerful psychological mechanism that does not even depend on a magician.
Focus dude. Focus on the details and I think your magic trick will dissolve. Look at the example of the futures trading on AMR I posted about. You didn't even comment. Why not?
Tell me about a specific claim that you find convincing.
| Quote: |
Many of you will have watched the way powerful vested interests managed to turn the Internet - along with a large chunk of the British press - into an organon of Big Oil and King Coal.
|
This is the state that the press has been in for most of its history. The idea of "unbiased" news was invented with radio and TV because the high cost of entry and limited number of channels made it important that it not be used as a powerful propaganda device. Well it still was but it was a limited lowest common denominator propaganda.
The internet changed all that. The barrier to entry and limited number of channels are no longer a problem. This has both good and bad aspects.
The major news outlets are losing money massively. In the short term this is driving them into the arms of their corporate masters. Thats bad. But the barrier to entry is so low that there are other sources of news. Thats good. But often these sources cater to some narrow market. You can find any type of logical perversion or conspiracy theory that turns you on.
So what we are seeing isn't so much the takeover of the news by powerful interests. We are seeing a total Balkanization of news delivery. There is no way to stop it.
| Quote: |
Comment threads were spammed, hate-mongering invective inserted into message threads everywhere. Around two million websites appeared to "debunk" climate science, and aggressively smear individual scientists. Hundreds of millions of dollars were pumped into a network of front groups, who then bombarded the media with op-eds, letters to the editor and other material, causing widespread public confusion.
|
Exactly so. But you don't need hundreds of millions to do this. The barrier to entry is so low that anyone can play. By promoting an improbable and overly complex conspiracy theory you are serving someones political interest no less than the global warmer deniers/supporters or the evolution deniers/supporters. Be careful.
| Quote: |
Now here is something for you to ponder. If private companies can do so much to muddy the waters on the subject of climate change (just try Googling "Climategate") how much more successful would, say, the Central Intelligence Agency be if it were to set out to make the 9/11 truth movement look like a bunch of nutjobs?
|
Not an original thought. It is often the last refuge of the conspiracy theorist. If you prove that there was never a ufo at area 51 you can claim that this was just disinformation to cover up the ufo at area 52. Thus conspiracy theories evolve in response to debunkers. Its like a germ evolving resistance to penicillin.
In order to believe in ufos you need positive evidence for ufos. The more people there are out there trying to fool you the more you need to focus on the details of the actual evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Marks
Moderator
Joined: 04 Dec 2006
Posts: 9095
Location: Big Apple
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ppnl wrote: | Careful dude, you should learn a lesson from Bob Marks. If you look around and find that you don't like your most vocal supporter you should reexamine your position.
A conspiracy theory is built on misdirection the same way as a magic trick. Belief in conspiracy is more often based on suspension of disbelief rather than positive evidence. Magicians make a living on this phenomena. It is a very powerful psychological mechanism that does not even depend on a magician.
Focus dude. Focus on the details and I think your magic trick will dissolve. Look at the example of the futures trading on AMR I posted about. You didn't even comment. Why not?
Tell me about a specific claim that you find convincing.
| Quote: |
Many of you will have watched the way powerful vested interests managed to turn the Internet - along with a large chunk of the British press - into an organon of Big Oil and King Coal.
|
This is the state that the press has been in for most of its history. The idea of "unbiased" news was invented with radio and TV because the high cost of entry and limited number of channels made it important that it not be used as a powerful propaganda device. Well it still was but it was a limited lowest common denominator propaganda.
The internet changed all that. The barrier to entry and limited number of channels are no longer a problem. This has both good and bad aspects.
The major news outlets are losing money massively. In the short term this is driving them into the arms of their corporate masters. Thats bad. But the barrier to entry is so low that there are other sources of news. Thats good. But often these sources cater to some narrow market. You can find any type of logical perversion or conspiracy theory that turns you on.
So what we are seeing isn't so much the takeover of the news by powerful interests. We are seeing a total Balkanization of news delivery. There is no way to stop it.
| Quote: |
Comment threads were spammed, hate-mongering invective inserted into message threads everywhere. Around two million websites appeared to "debunk" climate science, and aggressively smear individual scientists. Hundreds of millions of dollars were pumped into a network of front groups, who then bombarded the media with op-eds, letters to the editor and other material, causing widespread public confusion.
|
Exactly so. But you don't need hundreds of millions to do this. The barrier to entry is so low that anyone can play. By promoting an improbable and overly complex conspiracy theory you are serving someones political interest no less than the global warmer deniers/supporters or the evolution deniers/supporters. Be careful.
| Quote: |
Now here is something for you to ponder. If private companies can do so much to muddy the waters on the subject of climate change (just try Googling "Climategate") how much more successful would, say, the Central Intelligence Agency be if it were to set out to make the 9/11 truth movement look like a bunch of nutjobs?
|
Not an original thought. It is often the last refuge of the conspiracy theorist. If you prove that there was never a ufo at area 51 you can claim that this was just disinformation to cover up the ufo at area 52. Thus conspiracy theories evolve in response to debunkers. Its like a germ evolving resistance to penicillin.
In order to believe in ufos you need positive evidence for ufos. The more people there are out there trying to fool you the more you need to focus on the details of the actual evidence. |
Excellent post ppnl.
Bob Marks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marvin Molotova
Veteran Factoid
Joined: 27 Oct 2008
Posts: 1562
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | A conspiracy theory is built on misdirection the same way as a magic trick. |
When people think of conspiracies they usually think of clever and intricate schemes plotted out by some evil mastermind with a Machiavellian brain.
Most conspiracies are far more mundane than that, and their perpetrators usually rely more on daring and bluff than cleverness to get away with them.
The 9-11 conspiracy wasn't particularly well thought out or executed. In some respects, in fact, it was a botched job. Some of the agents involved in it were caught red handed, for godsake! With a vanload of explosives!
It took the FBI less than an hour to conclude that Mossad was responsible.
If there had been any kind of criminal investigation into the attacks, Mossad's guilt would have been easily established. But the government instructed both the FBI and the CIA not to pursue the Israeli angle. Several FBI and CIA agents are on record as confirming a Mossad connection with 9-11 but say they were told that it would be "career suicide" to go any further than this. The 60 Israeli agents who were arrested immediately after the attacks - including the five "dancing Israelis" who had their video cameras set up to "document the event" ("Our purpose was to document the event" is the exact words they used on Israeli TV), were quietly shipped back to Israel after being held in custody for over two months.
US intelligence agencies identified Mossad as being responsible for 9-11 early on; but of course that wasn't what the government wanted to hear, or wanted the public to believe. The plan was to use the attacks as a pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Hence the miraculous discovery at the scene of a passport belonging to a terrorist known to be involved with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
The planting and "discovery" of this passport was really stretching credulity to its limits; but it was imperative to be able to produce instant evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the attacks, and only a passport "found at the scene" would serve that purpose. And, of course, it worked. Even the most obvious tricks work when there is a willingness to believe (as a certain other former Israeli soldier-turned-spoon-bender could tell you).
The 9-11 attacks involved a certain amount of cleverness and planning; but the basic plan was really quite straightforward. The only tricky part was making sure that the finger of blame pointed in the direction of Osama bin Laden. How hard was that? The public had already been primed for years to believe that bin Laden was behind every terrorist attack that took place anywhere in the world. Yet no-one in the intelligence community believes this (no more than they believed that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons).
_________________
Marvo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikkel_the_Dane
Uber Factoid
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 982
Location: Not really there
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Paul Hayward 
Now here is the key "fallacy" in ppnl's active critical thinking and skepticism. He didn't check for using the "honest con-job" on himself. He fell for the following trick - I know something as "true", therefore I don't have to check something else, because I know in the same "sense".
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=1
So what is the difference between UFOs at area 51 and the producing of a casus belli?
The former has happen before!!! So if a part of the claim is that parts of the US-government produced in some sense a casus belli, you shouldn't require the same kind of extraordinary evidence as for the claim of UFOs in area 51 as opposed to whether it is possible to produce a casus belli!!!
In general ppnl uses this reasoning, because some conspiracy theories require extraordinary proof, all do and because some are "wishful" thinking, all are!!!
So I will not in Bob-style claim I Know that parts of the US-government were involved nor that I Know based on Objective Reasoning that it was the case.
Rather I know I can't prove it, but I can give you the reasoning why I suspect it was the case.
- It has happened before.
- Based on indirect knowledge of the players involved - i.e. the psychology of power - it was properly not beyond them.
- "Follow the money"; i.e. was there a power motive? Yes!
So what did actually happen?
I don't know that, but rather as a minimum it is likely that the US and Israeli knew beforehand and didn't stop it, but used it to their own advantage and all the way to Zak's claim.
With regards
Mikkel
_________________
I don't believe in the Truth and that is the Truth 
Truth has nothing to do with an individual's ability to think, period - Bob Marks
Everything is composed of atoms - Bob Marks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PHayward
Uber Factoid
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 708
Location: Warwickshire, England.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
ppnl,
Like Fred Askew's, your responses here are such generic ripostes they could pretty much be cut 'n' pasted into any other thread involving allegations of a cover-up. Straight out of the Skeptics Handbook (which demonstrates my point about skepticism hardening into ideology).
It looks to me as though you didn't even bother to look properly at the evidence. A psychological defence mechanism, rather than a serious attempt to analyse the facts, which you waved away.
Yet black ops, false flag and other covert military operations are commonplace. They have taken place throughout history, all over the world. Governments are, all the time, engaged in a conspiracy to decieve the public. Failing to acknowledge this requires a wilful blindness to political and historical reality.
Take another look at the Bogus War on Terror pt. 2 thread. Treat each article is a separate fact, or collection of related facts. Can you refute any of them?
If not, then what's stopping you from drawing the obvious conclusion? Conflicting evidence? Like what?
P.S. You wrote, "Focus on the details and I think your magic trick will dissolve. Look at the example of the futures trading on AMR I posted about. You didn't even comment. Why not?"
Because you didn't comment on any of evidence I provided, and I'm stubborn
_________________
Paul.
"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" - John Maynard Keynes
"Many good liars have no imagination at all; it's that which gives their lies such wide-eyed conviction" - Philip Pullman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
