Alternative Knowledge

Started by monkey424, Mon 25/01/2016 22:09:27

Previous topic - Next topic

monkey424

Well, we're off to a good start...

My initial 9/11 post was moved around and buried here: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.260

(Deep breath)

I started this thread by revisiting the 9/11 issue but do not intend to restrict discussions to this topic. Rather, this thread is intended to be about "alternative knowledge". I've intentionally used this phrase rather than "conspiracy theory" in consideration of the following:

a) Not everything is a theory, even if it is perceived so.
b) "Conspiracy theory" is a manipulative term as outlined below.

In other words, this thread is intended to be about things we can know, based on evidence, and can be used to explore underlying realities. The discussion does not necessarily have to involve wild speculation or theory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Knowledge Topic #1:
Origin of "Conspiracy Theory"

The term "conspiracy theory" has become firmly rooted in pop culture. In the world of fiction, the concept can flourish (e.g. Dan Brown books, 007 movies). However in the real world, the phrase tends to put people off and discourage any attempt at serious discussion. This is the case at least in Western culture. In this regard it is a form of intellectual terrorism. But are you aware of the origin of the term?

Historical Context

The term "conspiracy theory" and its strong negative connotation was popularised by the CIA who hijacked the term and effectively "weaponized" it. This article gives some background:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/dont-fooled-conspiracy-theory-smears.html

Apparently the CIA distributed a memo to its agents in response to growing public skepticism toward the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of JFK. The declassified memo titled "Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report" played a definitive role in making the "conspiracy theory" term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government's increasingly covert programs and activities into question.

Document 1035-960



Summary

The memo outlines a detailed series of actions and techniques to counter and discredit the claims of conspiracy theorists. Instructions to agents include:

a) Employ propaganda assets to refute the attacks of the critics through medium such as book reviews and articles.
b) Advise covert assets in the media to ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion is already taking place.
c) Direct agents to remind their friendly elite contacts (such as politicians and editors) of the Warren Report's integrity and urge them to use their influence to discourage speculation.

The memo also details the additional to counter conspiratorial arguments:

1. Claim the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, based on unreliable eyewitness testimony for example.
2. Claim it would be impossible to conceal a large-scale conspiracy.
3. Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
4. Claim that no significant new evidence has emerged.
5. Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
6. Claim conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
7. Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
8. Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.

A short video about the above is here (just watch 5 minutes from the set point at 25:19). Don't bother with the rest of the video though – it's one of those long ones!

Another interesting article related to this topic (here) lists 25 rules of disinformation (scroll to the bottom for the actual list of 25 points).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Knowledge Topic #2:
Wikipedia

Whilst Wikipedia does have entries about certain "conspiracy" (alternative knowledge topics), its coverage is often wildly inaccurate and serious omissions are made. People attempting to make corrections are never successful - they get blocked and the pages are set back to how they were. Wikipedia editors/moderators are anonymous and not accountable for their actions. Refer to Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez's attempt to post a page about Dr Judy Wood's research (here). Try and find a real name in any of the history of discussion of changes to an article. Students at school and university are often discouraged from using Wikipedia as a reference, due to the lack of integrity it has. Yet links to its pages often come at the top of most google searches.
    

Snarky

Mmmm... nope. One conspiracy thread at a time is enough. If you want to offer these points as arguments, you can do so in the other thread. Outside of that context, this thread isn't really open-ended: it's just you making some random-seeming claims.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk