Ignorance Vs. Paranoia - Blindness Vs. Super-Awareness

[havanagilla]

starmsky, you are right of course, i meant that MsM is immitating (mimic?) rigour; while qq was complaining about some "parapolitical" people immitating intuition. <br>------------------------------<br>the point was, how "connected" everything is ...so MsM hide obvious connections (like corruption or commercial interests) and some alternative-intuitive commentators connect everything to everything, so that it really becomes meaningless again. <br>----<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Quentin Quire]

Thanks to everyone who responded to this. I will try and expand upon my original post and I have considered getting my own blog to do so.<br><br>Peace to all at RI, whether you agree with what I said or not. <br><br>(And yes - this was a tactical bump. So sue me!!)<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[starroute]

Part of the answer, I think, is a "with enough eyes all bugs are shallow" kind of approach.<br><br>We all miss things. We're all capable of obsessing about things that don't really add up. But by laying our ideas out at a board like this, getting feedback, finding out whether what seems convincing evidence to us will also convince others, we're much less likely to get caught in blind alleys.<br><br>Another useful guideline for me comes out of the statement of the great linguist de Saussure: "A language is a system in which everything hangs together." Similarly, a conspiracy theory to be convincing has to hang together, with all the parts reinforcing one another and none of them working at odds. <br><br>If I suspect two people or groups of conspiring together today, I become more confident about that if I discover they also conspired together 20 years ago. If, on the other hand, I can't find any other connections between them, I let the suspicion go, or at least put it on the back burner. Human beings tend to conspire with people they know well and feel comfortable with -- they're very rarely willing to put that degree of trust in the hands of total strangers.<br><br>Taking that line of thought a step further, if I find that they were deadly enemies 20 years ago, I accept that as strong counter-evidence. I don't start theorizing that they were just pretending to be enemies as part of some sort of elaborate psy ops maneuver -- at least not unless I have a really good independent reason to think so.<br><br>Einstein is quoted as having said about the laws of physics that God may be subtle, but he is not malicious. In the same way, conspiracy theory as I understand it requires us to look for subtle connections -- but not to believe that the path is strewn with deliberate booby traps. The people doing it just aren't that clever or that original, and their ideas of security tend to run more towards blackmail or murder than towards Machiavellian obfuscation. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starroute>starroute</A> at: 3/24/06 5:08 pm<br></i>

[Quentin Quire]

Starroute - thank you for a very informative post quoting things I was personally not familiar with.<br><br>What struck me most was this --<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The people doing it just aren't that clever or that original, and their ideas of security tend to run more towards blackmail or murder than towards Machiavellian obfuscation. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Which means humanity might stand a chance, right?<br><br>It's rare that those involved in this sort of stuff can take comfort in something, but I read that and thought 'F*** Yeah.'<br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Einstein is quoted as having said about the laws of physics that God may be subtle, but he is not malicious. In the same way, conspiracy theory as I understand it requires us to look for subtle connections -- but not to believe that the path is strewn with deliberate booby traps. The people doing it just aren't that clever or that original, and their ideas of security tend to run more towards blackmail or murder than towards Machiavellian obfuscation. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well put, I agree. But what I can't get over is how goddamn effective they are at creating great unsolveable mysteries that tie everyone in knots. Kennedy and 9-11 are just works of art in that department. But when I read the Northwoods docs, I just don't see any of the sort of Hannibal Lector types of supergeniuses plotting. I see a very doable plan with a very obvious psywar goal of patriotic indignation. But I don't see the authors playing the labrynthine types of psywar games that conspiracy theorists suspect go on. <br><br>Of course the Northwoods docs could just be fakes and part of psywar game to taunt us all . . . <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/24/06 5:27 pm<br></i>

[Quentin Quire]

IMHO Northwoods was created by agency members who believed in the US Vs. Communist paradigm and felt able to sacrifice US civilians to what they felt was a valid 'military plan'.<br><br>That's the thing for me - a 'military plan' against what in that period was a valid enemy - Communist Cuba.<br><br>Shortly before the JFK thing went down the communists were not the enemy - the enemy was internal and the same form of plans and operations existed but needed a 'firewall'. Hence anti-Castro Cubans, the Mob etc. etc. <br><br>The plans of this era were the birthing/spawning pool for many of the techniques we see in operation today.<br><br>If it ain't broke, why fix it? <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

Northwoods was joint chiefs I thought. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The plans of this era were the birthing/spawning pool for many of the techniques we see in operation today.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think it's definitely gotten better, but even in JFK, which was only 8 months or so after Northwoods was dated, they're using alot of the same techniques. <br><br>Bottom line I think is that we don't have any more docs like Northwoods to compare and analyze. I think conspiracy theorists were probably stunned when Northwoods came out because it's all so formally set out in a memo like that with them talking so nonchalantly about doing that stuff. <br><br>What I would love to be able to do is to somehow get a real psyops type from the present day and hear a no bullshit analysis of exactly how they work. Not likely . . . <p></p><i></i>

[Quentin Quire]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What I would love to be able to do is to somehow get a real psyops type from the present day and hear a no bullshit analysis of exactly how they work. Not likely . . . <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Me and you both. Mp3 if you've got one ...<br><br>IMHO by this point in time they probably have agents who don't even know they are agents and people running campaigns for them in the best of faith - even before we get into MK Ultra tactics.<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

QQ, this is a four year old series in what appears to be a rightwing internet publication. Unless it's some sort of disinformation, which I have no reason to suspect, the author appears to be an ordinary Joe type of homeschooling Christian. <br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm" target="top">www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm" target="top">www.sierratimes.com/03/07/07/article_tro_flight77.htm</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>What's always intrigued me is that there seems like there's a big opportunity to peel off conservatives on 9-11, but it just never goes anywhere. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>What's always intrigued me is that there seems like there's a big opportunity to peel off conservatives on 9-11, but it just never goes anywhere.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That is EXACTLY why the disinfo is so heavy and the far rightwing (especially the manipulated rightwing) has been so quick to jump on it to muddy the waters. THAT is EXACTLY why discernment and caution are needed before embracing any theory as long as it is anti-Bush, anti-neocon. <br><br>Win some genuine truth seekers over to fascist interpretations, and discredit the theories in the eyes of many others. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

DE, when you say rightwing, are you talking about patriot/militia types or just rank and file Christian conservatives in middle America or what types?<br><br>What percentage of the people like that author -- conservative Christian homeschooler -- do you think is open to MIHOP theories? <br><br>The way these folks are presented in the media, you'd think they're all Fox News zombies and firmly behind Bush on the basics of 9-11 and the 'endless war' agenda. I'm not so sure that's the case at all though, but I really don't know. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

(on edit. I'm responding to Starroute's comment-<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Another useful guideline for me comes out of the statement of the great linguist de Saussure: "A language is a system in which everything hangs together." Similarly, a conspiracy theory to be convincing has to hang together, with all the parts reinforcing one another and none of them working at odds.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm trying to show that popular media like movies do have a conspiratorial system of synthesis.)<br><br>Ah, yes. 'The Taming of the Shrew' and surviving the Song of the Sirens. Lash yourself to the ship of state and don't be a wimp!<br><br>There is an ongoing 'witch burning' theme sustained by the National inSecurity State's need for warriors.<br><br>In a rule-by-tension society it is SEXUAL tension that is the strongest to harness. This is where the ages old 'gender war' is intentionally inflamed to keep men from listening to women and become nurturers instead of killers.<br><br>Keeping men afraid of and suspicious of women is part of military intelligence training to keep those 'honeypots' from trapping male agents and this is applied to the culture at large in CIA-influenced popular media to keep a male-dominated society with a predictable baseline of military recruits and domestic violence.<br><br>I have a 1962 book of Esquire magazine's 'What Every Man Should Know' with several pages of CIA recruiting in the 'careers' section. The book is for the 'entitled' white male Ivy League set and is very racist and sexist. It portrays women as dangerous sirens to be mastered. This is the culture of male dominance within elite control groups which was at first nasty and instinctive and then made deliberate and systemic.<br><br>------------------------------<br>crossposted-<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Fascism is a domination cult, a MALE domination cult.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Here are the titles listed in Yahoo's 'Movies' page where current release themes are amplified with universal ones of-<br>>be afraid and fight back (war/recruiting)<br>>listen to Father at home, church, and state (follow the 'leader')<br>>you are watched (obey/resistance is futile)<br><br>The latest Disney animation of 'Chicken Little is LOADED with male domination themes. Disney even took Mickey Mouse off their Disney Dollars to replace him with the father-pleasing 'Chicken Little.' There is no mother figure and the females in the film are either hostiles OR "addicted to self-help books." <br>Hmm...<br><br>Yahoo film box online 3/25/06-<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Opening This Weekend<br>· Inside Man<br>· Larry the Cable Guy<br>· Stay Alive<br> <br>Also In Theaters<br>· V for Vendetta<br>· She's the Man<br>· Find Me Guilty<br> <br>Hot New Trailers<br>· The Da Vinci Code<br>· Mission: Impossible III<br>· Basic Instinct 2<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Anybody else see a pattern? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/25/06 4:29 pm<br></i>

[robertdreed]

yes. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

So succinct, RobertReed. Don't forget this is supposed to be a RigorousIntuition thread. (lol.)<br><br>oops. I should've mentioned that my above post on movies was my response to Starroute's comment so I edited it in. I wasn't trying to hijack the thread but illustrate it with evidence. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/25/06 4:31 pm<br></i>

[NewKid]

I noticed from watching the Hannity and Colmes segment that Betsy Hart and Sean's argument were pretty much 'don't talk about it because it will upset the families.' Betsy Hart even had a preposterous theory that people had to invent the govt as the one who did it because it's just too frightening to think the terrorists are real. <br><br>Hmm, fake terror attacks, concentration camps, martial law, engineered plagues . . .<br><br>or <br><br><br>Hani Hanjour flying around with a cape and a mask . . . <p></p><i></i>