by Dreams End » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:52 am
Like most things I post, this one made some people mad. I can't imagine why. It's my own list of standards I try to use when researching something on this unreliable, anonymous forum called the internet. Works for books too.<br><br>So, read at your own risk. Another poster on the board asked for a reprint and here it is. I won't say who it was, or he/she might also be accused of being a "gatekeeper" as I was. So...use it or no...I have no power of enforcement on this site. Never have:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Thought I'd post a few thoughts on what constitutes credible evidence when wading through the massive amounts of bullshit on the internet. This is not meant to be exhaustive..just some thoughts.<br><br><br>1. Any fool can get a web page. Case in point...I have a blog.<br><br>2. Just because something is on a web page doesn't make it true, just like just because something is in the mainstream media doesn't make it true.<br><br>3. When evaluating the relative worth of information you need to ask yourselves lots o' questions.<br><br>4. One question is: what sources does this person have for his information? Can I check them myself to see if they say what this person says they say?<br><br>5. Let me back up. The first question is: does this site even HAVE any sources of information or does it consist of unsupported assertions? I'm amazed at how people will link to a site that is simply some guy asserting things with no evidence whatsoever.<br><br>6. If the site relies on "inside information" I don't dismiss it outright, but I'm very cautious. I ask: What is the track record of other such claims. Do they usually pan out?<br><br>7. Always look at the agenda of the author/website. Always. Information, even true information can be cherry picked and distorted. Having an idea of the background and context is important. Looking at old posts is one way. I find another way is to look at links. Many sites have a huge number of links...so I don't worry as much (but still worry) when questionable links are there. However, I'll use Skolnick as an example. One of three "associate sites" right at the top of his links is to Eustace Mullens. You can google Mullens and I've written about him elsewhere. If you want to argue that Mullens isn't racist and anti-Semitic, start another thread please. I'll deal with that there. The point is, these links give context to the site and ffer hints into a worldview.<br><br>8. The fact that there may be some truth in a site is not an argument concerning the truthfulness of other items on the site. Of COURSE, there's some true information on the site. Otherwise nobody would even be tempted to believe any of it. And, as I said, true facts can be cherry picked and manipulated.<br><br>9. Bad info gets recirculated over and over again, sometimes on good sites. Go to the original link and go thru the above steps to discern if the information is good or not. I've seen quasi-legit sites quote Judicial-Inc.biz, for example. This is the site, of course, that claims Jews are killing children and using their blood for Matzoh. I mean that literally, not as hyperbole. If you want to debate about Judicial-Inc, take your meds and then start another thread. I don't want to debate particular sources here, but it IS a worthwhile thing to do. I think that particular coffin got nailed shut some time ago, though.<br><br>10. We know the mainstream media lies, but they are often useful. Obviously, beware of spin and disinfo, but I think mainstream accounts are most useful when they seem to contradict the official version of events.<br><br>11. You've done some research and believe a certain theory has merit. Be very careful not to accept a website merely because it agrees with your point of view. That's the time to be MORE careful, not less.<br><br>12. Here's the tough one. Offensive ideas are often disguised. Code words are used sometimes. For example, in mainstream terms, often when politicians use the term "welfare mothers" we know they mean African-American women. Yes, there are white mothers on welfare as well, and this gives the politician the "out" if he's called on such a statement. I hate to say it, but conspiracies that center on Jews, "but not all Jews" are similar. And here's an even harder point for some to grasp. While it is NOT true that all who believe there is a literal "Illuminati" behind various conspiracies are anti-Semitic, it IS true that many sites use "Illuminati" as a code for Jews. How do you know the difference? Usually, it just take a very little bit of digging. Sites that talk about the "Luciferians", for example, will often also have information that suggests Jews are, in fact, Luciferians. Read Makow for an example.<br><br>13. What about "intuition"? Glad you asked. For your personal beliefs, intuition can be valuable in guiding you. However, people's intuitions differ, so your intuition is not proof of anything. Nothing to be ashamed of...I have a feeling that some of the truths we seek simply are not proveable at present. Nevertheless, your intuition still doesn't count as proof. However, sometimes your intuition can spur yourself or others to dig deeper and you might actually encounter some proof.<br><br>14. Personal testimony, I'm afraid, in a forum such as this, isn't "proof." We'll develop online relationships and have online friends whom we trust...but it's our history with them that allows this trust. Don't be surprised if you come on this site and your strange story is met with disbelief. Hopefully, it will be respectful disbelief or gentle questioning. But this is an anonymous forum, and there's simply no way to verify someone's personal experience. I've read enough alien abduction accounts, for example, that I could write a convincing firsthand account, though I've never been abducted. For whatever reason, people do this sort of thing. I'm not sure why.<br><br>15. Bullshit can be very well developed. I read Fritz Springmeier's "illuminati bloodlines" recently. It's highly detailed. Not one iota of proof or one source of any of his information, of course. And I've seen him quoted on this very site. Ask yourself, why do I believe this guy? Oh, and of course the most POWERFUL illuminati family are Jews.<br><br>16. Disinformation efforts are sophisticated. We'll all fall for some. They put out the info and then rush to put in place a website or organization that refutes the very information they, themselves, put out. Maybe they add some extreme stuff to discredit the opposition. Maybe they just want to control the opposition. Sometimes I honestly feel that some disinfo efforts are just exercises of some Yale graduate students' spycraft PhD. (Kidding...I think.) How much interest would they have in a site like RI? I don't know. The IP addresses Jeff has logged show they do read this site. To be honest, I worry more about contamination by fascist fringe groups looking to recruit or simply open people to their perspective on events. Some of these fringe groups are surely intel ops, but I can't say for sure which ones are and which ones have a...less formal relationship. This site now has so many "blame the Jews" types that I fear any credibility it had is lost. However, sophisticated readers will notice this is a very loosely moderated board and take that into account, I hope.<br><br>17. I'd familiarize yourself with the history of fascist/anti-Semitic conspiracy theory because it keeps popping up in different guises. Learn about the centuries old "blood libel" against the Jews. Much of the "meta-analysis" of RA is simply a recycling of these stories. What I mean is not that there is no RA, but that people are interpreting (and some intentionally spinning) RA accounts in a larger context that is simply a retelling of the blood libel but the word "Jews" replaced with Illuminati or Luciferians. You'll then be forced to make a choice. You'll be forced to either<br><br>a. believe the old blood libel stories and, by extension, that there is a Jewish conspiracy to bring evil into the world, destroy Christianity and enslave the goyim or<br><br>b. become better able to discern wheat from chaff when sorting through modern conspiracy theories. I hate to say it, and I say this as someone who believes very much that conspiracy is simply the way the powerful operate, but much of the conspiracy theory I've come across is simply unsupported retellings of these same anti-Semitic conspiracy theories from Nazi times and even much earlier.<br><br>18. Be very suspicious of current and "former" intelligence agents. Some of them really do turn against the system, I'm sure, but it's simply too hard to tell what their agenda might be. I don't know how to tell the difference.<br><br>19. Speaking of, we are in an interesting time when elements of the intelligence agencies and other "insiders" are leaking information...probably true information...to discredit other insiders, i.e. the Bush administration. What a maze that gets to be. The info is real, but is maybe a "limited hangout"...that is, enough info to discredit the president but not the whole intelligence apparatus. I think we simply have to have the caution flag up about all of this stuff, as even the true stuff is serving an agenda. Note that this does not mean you cannot sit back and enjoy the implosion of the Bush administration. In fact, I recommend it.<br><br>I guess I'll stop this rambling on a prime number just 'cos. Other hints welcome...but I hope people will respect my desire to keep this thread about the process of weighing the merits of information sources and will, if they feel they need to, start debates about particular sources in another thread. If you want to that badly, just post something here like "You are an idiot...Makow is great and I'm posting another thread to prove it." and those interested can meet you over there.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>And if you want to wade through the rather odd attacks on me...even for this site...that this post generated...here's the original:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm27.showMessage?topicID=123.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=123.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Cheers. If this thread doesn't head south like the other one did, feel free to add your own guidelines. Personally, after awhile I develop "filters" and tend to weed out stuff TOO quickly. Some posters on this site have been good at calling me on that and opening my eyes to new perspectives. I don't recommend it, but if you went back and read all my posts, you'd find a lot of changes in my thinking. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I just try to go where the evidence leads...and I admit I don't have time to be a fulltime researcher...wish I did. <br> <p></p><i></i>