- This topic has 150 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Distraction, not partisanship, drives sharing of misinformation
“there are still a lot of people who choose to share stuff that even a cursory examination would show was garbage. What’s driving them?”
That’s not aimed an anyone in particular just a quote to explain what the article is focused om.That’s three. Any more conspiracy deniers around?
—
[ Mod: This is another comment posted via anonymous VPN. Guess who? ]@ PresentAndCorrect 10:47
This person presents a strong case that conspiracy deniers have transferred an infantile trust and reliance in parents, which evolution has hard-wired into us, to governments and other powerful modern institutions.
“Infantile”? Oh, the howling hypocrisy!!
Conspiracy deniers place their trust “in the biggest, loudest, most present and undeniable force around, because instinct decrees that survival depends on it. And, in this great ‘world nursery’, the most omnipresent force is the network of institutions which consistently project an unearned image of power, calm, expertise, concern and stability.”
Foyle’s argument amounts to nothing more than: “Look, see how little kids look up to their parents and do whatever they’re told … that’s you, that is!” His pathetic (truly “infantile”) argument from analogy really is no stronger than that. It’s unlikely to rank as a great work in philosophy of science.
And of course, it’s trying to deceive by distraction. Never mind that many of these alleged “conspiracy deniers” (which include the vast majority of professional medics and scientists) are knowledgeable enough about science to scrutinise the claims made in official publications. Never mind that they’re sufficiently qualified in those disciplines to verify or disconfirm by observation and experiment. No, according to PresentAndCorrect they’re apparently just little kiddies repeating whatever teacher told them to say … despite all their knowledge, qualifications and expertise (which rather ruin the impact of the analogy).
If that’s the highest level of argument that covid critics can proffer, then I’d suggest they’re best ignored. Acknowledging them only gives them encouragement.
Me – “Got any thoughts of your own?”
P&C – “That’s three. Any more conspiracy deniers around?”
Apparently not, then; Foyle’s article has said it all for PresentAndCorrect.
– – – – – – – –There’s a major problem with Foyle’s proposal:
– “All the sociopath need do to win in the game is lie publicly whilst conspiring privately.”
What? These sociopaths never turn on each other? They cooperate perfectly, for decades, never exposing each other’s secrets and deceptions? None of them ever use revelation to the public to bring another down? Or, the threat of exposure gets used in their struggle for dominance, but it’s resolved amicably, without exposure, every time?
That seems very weird. Having clawed their way ruthlessly to the very top, suddenly they start acting with complete trustworthiness towards each other.
Wouldn’t Foyle’s model of world events actually predict highly unstable narratives prone to sudden reversals, with a sporadic but ongoing turnover of exposed sociopathic former conspiracy members?
I am currently reading Mark E Thomas ‘We are the 99%, we have been screwed and how to fight back’.
It is a very interesting book but relevant to the present discussion is part two ‘Why we do not act’. ‘Going post fact’ discusses how truth is blurred and statistics manipulated or selectively quoted. He then goes on to discuss the spectrum between fact and post fact, starting with what he calls the absolute truth on which precise science and in particular mathematics operate, grading onto the approximate truth, spin, deliberate misrepresentation, then unfounded falsehoods. The next three categories are straddled by the MSM, whereas politics and social media include the fourth category of deliberate unfounded falsehoods. This is created is by the propagation of myths through propaganda.
So to me what the conspiracy theorists are doing is mainly in working through myth creation and propaganda and embellishing deliberate misrepresentations and unfounded falsehoods that are similar but even more extreme than what politicians do, as the later have to remain in touch with reality. The same individuals claim to be fighting the system whilst using the same discredited methods used by the politicians, but often without any attachment to reality.
Elsewhere the author also discusses how it becomes very difficult for many to relinquish their long held beliefs when faced with rational discussion and this is exactly what we find here with the denialists, they are not capable of rational discussion. Moreover, most will not only stick to one denial but go through the whole gamut of climate denial, HIV denial. antivaccine and covid denial.So Present And Correct is flushing out the ‘conspiracy deniers’ eh? Wouldn’t it be nice if those individuals do not hide behind VPNs and sock puppetry and have the confidence of their convictions tested by just conforming to the rules of discussion?
Conspiracy theory: a term of abuse directed against a politically incorrect ordering of the facts. (Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry)
In other words, anything that challenges the dominant or received views of powetful groups.
“they are not capable of rational discussion”
I believe everyone is capable of rational discussion. It’s a conscious choice whether or not to engage with rational discussion. They are capable but just choose not to bother. Question is why?
Ken MacIntyre, yes that’s one way that the term “conspiracy theory” is used; as a term of ridicule to evade discussion. But there’s another way too, and the first way couldn’t work effectively without it. This symbiotic relationship is what I’m trying to clarify.
Taking the example you cite, Finkelstein is right that the Holocaust is played upon to divert and vilify criticism of Israel. But such diversion and vilification is greatly strengthened by the genuine existence of Holocaust denial; indeed, it would look lame without it.
Holocaust denial is an example of conspiracy theory in my second sense above, in that it proposes that all the copious evidence for the Holocaust is merely fabrication by an immensely powerful conspiracy.
– “In other words, anything that challenges the dominant or received views of powerful groups.”
How would “Flat Earth”, “Chemtrails” or the “UN Depopulation Agenda 21” stuff fit into this? Do they seriously challenge anything important? Or do they serve as distractions from vital issues?
Dredd, March 19, 14:33:
– Foyle’s argument amounts to nothing more than: “Look, see how little kids look up to their parents and do whatever they’re told … that’s you, that is!”
It’s not even true of little kids. Kids constantly create fantasy and make-believe, and get away with whatever they can. I remember.
Dredd – “If that’s the highest level of argument that covid critics can proffer, then I’d suggest they’re best ignored.”
If only! Unfortunately, this type of thinking is incredibly pervasive, and there’s a very broad spectrum, eg. hartgroup.org and its apparent front leftlockdownsceptics (which I discovered from this comment).
This is a whistleblower’s site, yeah? And you have a problem with anonymity? Weird. And yes please do guess who. I can’t wait to find out who I am.
— snip —
[ Mod: Well, OK, if you insist. We know that you are the commenter formerly known as ‘Node’ – who was banned for sockpuppetry (as ‘Ankle Sum’) while under investigation for sockpuppetry (as ‘Wacamole’, ‘Duck’ and ‘Mushy’, among others) shortly after returning from a lengthy ban for sockpuppetry (as ‘Buster’). The evidence has been shared with the rest of the blog team.
Persistent trolls often engage in sockpuppetry via anonymous proxies following a ban. Accordingly, from now on any contribution from a new identity posting via an anonymous server is eligible for suspension or deletion without further explanation. ]
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by
Hey mods, just like old times, eh? Tungsten, Steelback, Juniper, Freeborn…
—
[ Mod: Ah yes, such bittersweetmemories of the puppet show known as the “clown car” …Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be. ]
Node
You are still anonymous as Node to us and the website owner states in their terms that VPNs and sockpuppetry are not permitted. This is a private blog site not a public utility, and I wonder whether you feel that propaganda comes in under the same umbrella as whistleblowing.Conspiracy is “the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end.” Conspiracy occurs otherwise there would be no law for it, nor would Adam Smith and Nicolo Machiavelli have written about it.
Any theoritical model which attempts to account for all the available data and which requires some element of criminal activity, undertaken in concert with others is by definition, conspiracy theory.
In other words, history itself is conspiracy theory. Ask Ceasar.
Conspiracy Theory however, that is a thought stopping rhetorical device, nothing more.
Since Michael Parenti has covered the ground adequately, long before anyone contributing here was politicaly aware, I bow to him:
At a World Affairs Council meeting in San Francisco, I remarked to a participant that U.S. leaders were pushing hard for the reinstatement of capitalism in the former communist countries. He said, “Do you really think they carry it to that level of conscious intent?” I pointed out it was not a conjecture on my part. They have repeatedly announced their commitment to seeing that “free-market reforms” are introduced in Eastern Europe. Their economic aid is channeled almost exclusively into the private sector. The same policy holds for the monies intended for other countries. Thus, as of the end of 1995, “more than $4.5 million U.S. aid to Haiti has been put on hold because the Aristide government has failed to make progress on a program to privatize state-owned companies” (New York Times 11/25/95).
Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.
Yet there are individuals who ask with patronising, incredulous smiles, do you really think that the people at the top have secret agendas, are aware of their larger interests, and talk to each other about them? To which I respond, why would they not? This is not to say that every corporate and political elite is actively dedicated to working for the higher circles of power and property. Nor are they infallible or always correct in their assessments and tactics or always immediately aware of how their interests are being affected by new situations. But they are more attuned and more capable of advancing their vast interests than most other social groups.
The alternative is to believe that the powerful and the privileged are somnambulists, who move about oblivious to questions of power and privilege; that they always tell us the truth and have nothing to hide even when they hide so much; that although most of us ordinary people might consciously try to pursue our own interests, wealthy elites do not; that when those at the top employ force and violence around the world it is only for the laudable reasons they profess; that when they arm, train, and finance covert actions in numerous countries, and then fail to acknowledge their role in such deeds, it is because of oversight or forgetfulness or perhaps modesty; and that it is merely a coincidence how the policies of the national security state so consistently serve the interests of the transnational corporations and the capital-accumulation system throughout the world.
J – “Any theoritical model which attempts to account for all the available data and which requires some element of criminal activity, undertaken in concert with others is by definition, conspiracy theory.
– In other words, history itself is conspiracy theory. Ask Ceasar.”
I disagree. “Theory” means a framework for thought. What you are describing would be more accurately termed “a conspiracy hypothesis”. Every hypothesis has to be supported by independent evidence; it is of course invalid and circular to support an hypothesis by reference to the hypothesis itself, because you can prove absolutely anything that way, no matter how true or false.
Of course people conspire; there are countless examples throughout history. Craig has exposed several such conspiracies. But to use, as first and every resort, an assumption of a conspiracy with virtually limitless power to control evidence, is to use conspiracy as your primary framework of thought, and is rightly dismissed as “conspiracy theory”.
Here is a podcast that describes it very clearly and simply:
J, that’s a good passage you’ve quoted (13:50 above) and I very much agree with it, though I would also point out the ideological element to such conspiracy – these things are often right out in the open, such as the Project for a New American Century; these people are actually proud of their activities; they really believe that they’re doing good.
But the passage does not discredit the term “conspiracy theory”. The term does, however, suffer from ambiguity; ambiguity that conspiracy theorists relentlessly exploit in defence of their unsupportable assertions.
Conspiracy theory, especially anti-scientific and anti-rational conspiracy theory, is very useful to the powerful. Sensationalist 9/11 conspiracy theory has served as a smokescreen for the policy of torture to extract false confessions for creation of a misleading narrative, which in turn has provided cover for the US exploitation of jihadism. The assertion that global warming is a hoax manufactured by a conspiracy of climate scientists has protected vested interests’ profits for over three decades since the alarm was raised in the 1980s. Covid conspiracy theory is currently providing governments with support for their failure to control the pandemic.
Clark, why I should give one fig what your understanding of rationality or facts are, that is anyone’s guess. Perhaps because you are never censored for referring to people as anti-Semites, racists and conspiracy theorists without a single shred of evidence (witness your slurs throughout the discussion forum and elsewhere against a number of contributors) you may enjoy a certain undue confidence in your logical prowess. That’s echo chambers for you.
Be that as it may, I wish to bring another group of affirmed conspiracy theorists to your attention: The British Medical Journal.
“Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial”
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
Since this is an actual conspiracy theory on a thread about conspiracy theories, presumably the MODS will not object and censor it on the grounds of being off topic. Who knows?
J
This is not a conspiracy theory, nor is it surprising, nor is it shattering news:
Pfizer to pay record $2.3 billion penaltyThere are many instances of drug companies faking and manipulating data and so on. There are also many instances of motor car manufacturers doing the same. In the case you cited, this is part of a large-scale clinical trial involving many centres, and this particular operator was negligent or faulty or incompetent. It does not invalidate the whole trial result, nor the trial results of other vaccines, nor the real-life observations since the trials where vaccines were given to millions, that vaccines are safe and effective.
A conspiracy theory in the context used here, is that a few individuals are conspiring to control all the scientific establishment worldwide to fake results including that the virus exists, so as to make an ineffective vaccine with vast profits, or to manipulate our DNA, or to spy on us, or any other activity the particular conspiracy theorists want to ascribe to these conspiracists. So can you please explain to me what your beliefs are here and what are you trying to prove by this post?Owen Smith lobbied for Pfizer. Pre-COVID he contested the leadership of the Labour Party in 2016.
Currently works for another US pharmaceutical. Not suspicious at all.Ninja
Yah! And?Planned in advance?
Whenever there’s a trade deal a virus turns up that disrupts the local food system, without fail. Blair BSE and so on. AIDS. Ebola. SARS. Then the virus clears up when needed too, after a good deal of profit has been made of course, by the same people that always seem to benefit. The best viruses are the ones that have to be controlled, via medication, for life (like with hormone therapies).
Whenever the Yanks come to town a train derails or a cathedral burns a database gets hacked.
Or maybe it’s all just a big coincidence, like when Saddam had WMDs and the Afghans were hiding Bin Laden (who got younger and older during the time he was putting out videos) at the same time some Saudi’s (we know this because the passports survived the inferno) allegedly flew into the towers (but not building 7) causing an invasion of Syria. Maybe there’s no need to be suspicious I mean, after all, it seems pretty legit based on the timelines involved, based on the historically noted integrity of all involved.
Exactly Ninja, you illustrate very well conspiracy theories. All of the viruses are of course real and not planned, but what happens next is what is planned. But in confusing the two you make a hash of science and reality to fit your conspiracies.
The official 9/11 narrative was a conspiracy theory. Marketing (sorry, PR) people often use memorable numeric devices in order to make sure the punters remember their product. If said incident had happened on 3/20 it wouldn’t have had the same ring to it, would it? Red flag number one. The whole shebang benefitted an empire, an empire known for a gullible populace and marketing cheese, an empire that had already documented it’s plan for world domination a decade beforehand. Or should we just call this coincidence number 11346231?
A trade war needed to happen with China because they, like the EU before them, were doing far too well on the world stage for the empire’s liking. Low and behold – the pandemic happens! A lab financed by the empire happens to reside in the same country the empire wanted beef with! Coincidence number 11346232?
The virus is real. But it’s no where near as dangerous as they’re making out. The virus is here because it was created/planted/released for a purpose, I imagine, by the usual suspects. Or some 3rd party that likes doing that sort of things along with arson, assassinations, political meddling, train-wrecking and so on. Could I be wrong, could this merely be coincidence number 11346233/4 etc?
Look, I know, as citizens we’re supposed to go along with all this by ‘ohhhing’ and ‘aahhhing’ at the right times to make everyone feel better, it’s just that the stories are so lame, persistent and damn right silly these days that it’s getting harder and harder to ‘cooo’ with any dignity. I mean, for Christ’s sake they were trying to sell an alien-invasion CONSPIRACY THEORY a few months ago, along with the ole ‘Havana Syndrome Secret Death Ray’ b*llocks. C’mon!
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by
