Guidelines for research

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. 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: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> 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. 1. Any fool can get a web page. Case in point...I have a blog. 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. 3. When evaluating the relative worth of information you need to ask yourselves lots o' questions. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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. <hr></blockquote> 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: <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm27.showMessage?topicID=123.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...=123.topic</a> 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.

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:57 am

I have no problem admitting that I was the one who requested this. Thank you, DE. I don't mean that what I believe is necessarily tied to everyting that you believe, but this is an excellent TOOL to be used for assessment. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 2/5/06 11:08 pm

by **robertdreed** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:22 am

I think you left out perhaps the most important rule- get a library card- preferably a membership to a large university library. These are usually available even for non-students, although the price typically ranges in the $100-150 range, annually. That's still a lot cheaper than buying a couple of dozen books every year, even at used prices. If you're serious, it's worth it. However, I need to add my own experience here, as a new resident of Northern Virginia- in the same county as CIA headquarters, in fact. Compared to the Sacramento Public Library system, the Fairfax County, VA library system is appallingly under-stocked with good books on parapolitical topics. The George Mason University library is only slightly better. Neither one has a copy of R.T. Naylor's Hot Money and the Politics of Debt, for instance. And neither one has a copy of James Mills' The Underground Empire: Where Crime and Governments Embrace. That's simply disgraceful, in my view. Since most public libraries accept donations, I think that one effective form of activism would be to personally purchase classic parapolitical books on the open market whenever the opportunity arises, and donate them to one's local public library. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 2/5/06 11:23 pm

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:37 am

Ok, rdr, but I got a feeling the local "Barney Fifes" won't be too interested in my Michael Parenti books. Jes kiddin', poke, poke! (Have you figgered out how much I love jabbing your ribs now and then?) Sheet, spook country. Aaack!!!! Careful, dude. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 2/5/06 11:42 pm

by **Avalon** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:13 am

Personal testimony, I'm afraid, in a forum such as this, isn't "proof." One of the best ways of trying to figure out whether someone is bullshitting you on a forum is to have a global perspective on their postings over a period of time, and ideally in more than one venue. It's real hard to keep made up stories consistent, and if you find details changing in the versions you are seeing, assess what the pattern is that you are seeing. It can often require monumentally tedious slogging through hundreds of their postings, and if you are serious about getting to the truth you'll have to save the postings and their URLs so that you can match up the discrepancies. With that comes the territory where your bullshit artist calls you a stalker when you point out how they can't keep their story straight and you back up your accusations with corroboration. And the vast number of people in the forum won't give a rat's ass, because that might mean that they'd have to think and maybe do some research themselves. I've got someone in my sights at the moment. He's a convicted child molester, a former teacher. He seems to make his living with a contest where high school teams send in pictures of their teams for his commentary (I'm paraphrasing his activity somewhat). If what I think is happening is true, he's got 900 high school advisors ignoring the fishy aspects of his website, since I see no evidence on the Net that his conviction has been discussed. I have a feeling the courts never knew what he did via the "Internets" and thus never asked whether he should be handling pictures of teens. It will be a "teachable moment," and then some if I find this guy is overstepping boundaries. Robert, you'd do better to ask your librarian if you may contribute the book first. It may take $5-10 for them just to process a new book, and they may have space limitations. It may be that there are some controversial parapolitical books that keep getting ripped off from the library, and you might want to offer to replace some of them periodically.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:24 am

The internet is the prime venue for domestic rumor-mongering by American intelligence following guidelines first developed during WWII. I recommend reading the original link below in its entirety. I'd put more in this post but this is from jpg files showing declassified WWII Office of Special Services documents so I can't just copy and paste, I had to transcribe this. <a href="http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/rumormanual2june1943.htm">www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/os...ne1943.htm</a> Criteria of a Successful Rumor - OSS memo 6/2/43 >snip< Rumor Targets: A successful rumor must take advantage of the state of mind of the people for whom it is intended. The general principles are: 1. Those people who are most interested in information about events which effect them are the best targets for rumors supplying such information. 2. People with fears, hopes, and hostilities stemming from their involvement with the war are effected most by rumors that feed on those feelings.  Properties of a Rumor that Make it Spread: In addition to the above principles a successful rumor will embody one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Plausibility. Plausibility may be obtained by one or more of the following: Concreteness, unverifiability, authoritativeness, and credibility. 2. Simplicity. A good rumor characteristically presents one central, uncomplex idea. 3. Suitibility to task. "Slogan" rumors, which represent already accepted opinions can be short and uncomplicated by complexities and qualifications of plot. Rumors suggesting new attitudes should be embedded in an interesting narrative allowing room for development of details and some complexity of plot. 4. Vividness. Rumors which make clear-cut mental pictures with strong emotional content are likely to be most effective. 5. Suggestiveness. Frequently rumors which just hint or suggest something instead of stating it are particularly adapted to spreading fear and doubt. >snip< ...much more that is vital to understand when reading the internet.

by **robertdreed** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:28 am

I have to lodge an objection here: "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" I'm speaking personally here, from my experience: I don't believe the "old blood libel stories" about human sacrifice being an integral part of Jewish religious practice. Although any religious tradition can be warped, and I don't see why Judaism is exempt from that. I don't believe there's a Jewish conspiracy to bring evil into the world. Evil doesn't require the presence of Jews. By no means. As for "enslaving the goyim"- in a manner of speaking, that's what criminals the world over seek to do. Especially organized criminals. To the predatory gangsters who seek to run the world, "the goyim" are simply the decent, honest people, the square citizenry. And Jewish organized criminals exist. But they have more in common with other gangsters than they do with decent, law-abiding Jewish people. However, that leaves one more sticking point. I have observed a strong current of active anti-Christianity from many Jews. Not all of them, or even necessarily a majority- but a notable fraction, often the intellectuals and political activists. In the cases of which I'm thinking, markedly so. There seems to be an attitude that I call the "ABC" attitude- Anybody But Christians. You can be a Hindu, fine. A Buddhist, fine. An atheist or agnostic, a pagan, a New Ager, even a Satanist- fine. Just don't be a Christian. ( As for Islam, it seems to be too alien for Jews with this attitude even to contemplate. ) Curiously, some of the Jews I've encountered with this attitude don't even practice their own religion, or profess belief in God. Frequently, I've noted that their attitude is anger at a God that they don't believe in. Their Jewishness only comes into play as an "identity" issue. In fact, over time it's become difficult for me to even know what constitutes the Jewish religion. To mention just one paradox I've found: according to Jewish law, if someone is born to a Jewish mother, they're Jewish, and this applies even if they don't practice Judaism. It applies even if they practice another religion, in fact. As long as that religion isn't Christianity. A long time ago- maybe 10 years ago- I found myself at the thrift store, purchasing a copy of Victor Ostrovsky's By Way Of Deception. There was a middle-aged Latino guy in line next to me, and he glanced at the book cover and said to me, "you may love Jew, but Jew don't love you." That was a funny thing to hear, there like that. I think it's somewhat of an oversimplification, to say the least. As a blanket characterization, it strikes me as a bigoted statement. But I can't say that I don't have any idea what that guy was talking about. I've repeatedly noticed universalist principles confounded by Jewish "cultural identity" concerns that express themselves as a type of ethnocentrism. Perhaps the most obvious expression of this is the attitude of many Jews toward Jews who convert to Christianity. They're quite often regarded as if they've committed High Treason against The Tribe (in the case of Jews, a markedly ad hoc cultural affiliation, not reliably documentable by any genetic means.) Another part of this hostility is the insistence that all the political problems of American society have their genesis in the Christian religion. You know, the idea that greed and corruption are only secondary manifestations, the real problem is Christianity- which, as per this formulation, is inherently racist and bigoted. (Unless it's the black churches, which get treated patronizingly rather than actively condemned.) I know enough history to realize that justifiable grounds for these feelings exist. It's a matter worthy of airing out. But I think it's naive to deny that reflexive anti-Christianity is sometimes found as part of Jewish identity, and even considered to be an imperative as it's taught within families and some of the strains of the culture. It's as dishonest to deny that as it is to deny that there's such a thing as anti-Semitism. I don't mind hearing Christianity critiqued, even scathingly, as long as there's attention to honesty and balance. I don't care for it being caricatured or blasphemed, even though I'm confident that it can withstand it. And I'm not impressed by the seeming insistence on defining and monopolizing the nature of the moral high ground on the part of some Jews, as if it there were a competition taking place, or as if it were a zero-sum game played by them against everyone else. ( Christians who insist on the inherent superiority of all of their moral conclusions can be awfully disgusting, but they play the game differently- they don't insist that it's a birthright, an integral part of their ethnicultural heritage that others can only follow or emulate. Either way, it grates. But it isn't just Christians who can be obnoxious about that. ) With all of the flaws and faults of Christian tradition, and the often ghastly history that has transpired whenever it's been perverted for political purposes, its basic tenets- at least as professed- are open and uncomplicated. There are schisms galore, but they're out in the open. By contrast, I'm not sure what Jews are taught about their religion. Is the Jewish God a universal God, or a tribal God? How is that reflected in the synagogue, and in the rituals and observances? Do any of the rites resemble magical practices, in the sense that they're attempts at symbolic manipulations of the space-time continuum? What is the role of angels in Jewish cosmology? Does the Jewish God treat non-Jews differently, in the eyes of Jews? Is it required for a Jew to believe in God? What's the significance and function of the sacred and associated religious texts, like the Torah, the Midrash, the Talmud? I've found that Jews are often very circumspect about their religion and its tenets. And I know of many who are the most militant of atheists. One thing about Christians- there are no openly professing Christian atheists. ( I admit to being the sort of Christian who thinks that a certain latitude for agnosticism and doubt is built into the tradition, and I think I can point to scriptural justification for that idea. ) Anyway, I bring this up because I don't think it's on-point to deny that 1) suspicion and mistrust of Christianity is found in many Jews; and that 2) it's considered by at least some of them as part of the innate character of Jewishness to be not merely non-Christian, but actively disdainful of it and subversive of it. Beyond that, I don't see any particular need to over-emphasize it. But stuff like this looks worse when it gets swept under the rug... Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 2/6/06 3:46 am

by **biaothanatoi** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:41 am

Thought your guidelines were spot on, DE, but I'd definitely add a big "AND THEN GO READ SOME BOOKS AND JOURNAL ARTICLES" at the end. Robert's point about a library card is an important one. As for personal testimony - I've posted a lot of personal material on this site, and drawn some fire for it too. I wrote partly because the crimes were extreme and, if anything constituted news, I thought they did. I also wrote because the entire Geneva Convention had been torn up and shit on the night before, and I hated the fact that the only people that knew was my friend and I. A lot of people, here and elsewhere, have gone through my posts and articles and tried to assess their credibility. Some tried to call me on 'contradictions' that, to me, where productions of their own naivete - that they felt that what was being done to my friend would be hard to pull off, when, after twenty years of torture and brainwashing, the perps had it pretty easy. So when it comes to eyewitness testimony online, aside from outright fabrications and contradictions, I'd say that we have to learn to live with ambiguity, and acknowledge our own partiality.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:39 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Robert's point about a library card is an important one. <hr></blockquote> What's a library? Just kidding, it is a good point if you have a good library system. And yeah, bio, it was partly your testimony I was thinking of...and I was one who was "probing". My point is just that people who post such things shouldn't be too upset if not everyon believes or if they get questioned. I think I've matured about this issue. I think for now, I won't push too hard if someone seems to be in a genuine emotional crisis unless there is some very real evidence they are b.s.'ing. I think I did that to SW once. Her story doesn't completely add up to me, though it doesn't add up to her, either. However, she posted some little details, small observations about some aspects of DID that I decided she must be for real in that regard. Of course, we don't know ANY of these folks personally, so caution is always good. And rdr, while I expected this thread to get the usual share of "hey, but there are some bad jews so why can't we talk about them" posts which completely miss the point, I wasn't expecting it from you. At the risk of...oh hell, this will end up in the firepit, but I'll say it anyway. The primary reason I think it's important to understand blood libel type theory is that it contaminates legit research into conspiracy aspects of history. It's rightwing bullshit at best and many good people who really don't "hate jews" fall for it. So if I personally call out some theory as "anti-semite" material, it's primarily to show that it is simply baseless at best and disinfo at worst. I'm sorry you've found some offensive Jews. Around here, it's the Christians who assume cultural superiority and their sense of "persecution" in this country in which avowed evangelicals run the freaking place is pathetic. Maybe more later, but I'm really surprised, there rdr. I though you, of everyone, would get the point about the blood libel stuff and not start going off about some rude Jews you knew.

by **havanagila** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:03 pm

There is a posibility of Jews being part of satanic ritual, including whatever bad things there are around (sacrifices included, if they exist). the fact that there is a general false libel should not be a blanket denial of things you might see right in front of your eyes. I know you included that in your rules, DE, just to mention when saying there are "bad jews", so they can be as bad as the others and should be dealt with in the same way. --

by **starroute** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:12 pm

DE, your guidelines are just dandy, and I follow them myself wherever possible. But they really only work where the data is relatively "clean" -- where it can be cross-checked and verified and traced back to original sources. However, that isn't always possible -- and there are two areas where they break down entirely. One consists of topics like the Kennedy assassination, where there has been so much disinfo pumped into the system that it becomes impossible to tell what's legit and what is not. The other consists of areas like Bush family history where it appears that large amounts of info have been sucked out of the system, leaving only unsupported rumors from discreditable figures to suggest what's been covered up. In either case, you're left working in an anomalous zone, where the normal guidelines no longer apply. I've found it relatively easy to investigate small fry, or even middle-level figures like Jack Abramoff, but as soon as you get to the major targets, everything goes all wonky. I don't know any good answer to that. And rdr -- my grandmother firmly believed that any Jew who became a Republican was committing High Treason. There is definitely a Jewish circle-the-wagons mentality, but it's not specifically anti-Christian in the way you seem to think. Would you call gays anti-Christian because they point out the prevalence of homophobes in the religious right? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starroute>starroute</A> at: 2/6/06 11:13 am

by **sunny** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:35 pm

Donating books to the local library is a great idea. The gals at my local branch library were actually shocked when I brought in a copy of Mark Crispin Millers' Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too, but they took it and a couple were so intrigued they promised to read it. Only one had ever heard of the tome. Go figure.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:45 pm

Yeah, Jews hate Christians...that's why they played such a prominent role in the civil rights movement along with Black churches. And that's AFTER a couple millenia of pogroms and genocide done in the name of the church, though we can recognize that ANYONE can claim to act in the name of the church. But sometimes Popes were involved, and the founders of Protestantism weren't so enamored of Jews either. You people amaze me. starroute, your point is well taken. But the point STILL is not to simply swallow what comes along. Add to your qualification the possibilities the Jeff explores that there are truly nonrational things at work as well, and it's a pickle. But some elements can be verified always. And it's the verifiable stuff that doesn't get verified that drives me nuts. In other words, even if you LACK information, don't freaking make it up. Sheesh. (Not saying you do that, just so often see these huge "bombshell" statements made with no back up. So, sure, the disinfo games, and add in the weirdness factor, and what I'm pretty sure about is that we don't really know much at all about what's up. Not really. But there are an awful lot of verifiable facts out there. For example, I assumed mind control stuff was b.s. Oh, what? FOIA documents prove they were up to these things? And there WAS a project Bluebird attempt to create "Manchurian candidates?" So, I've had my eyes opened a great deal by the info that is available. But that doesn't mean I'll believe anyone who comes along just because they claim inside info. I'm still not convinced, for example, that "Project Monarch" ever existed...though it wouldn't surprise me that the activities allegedly carried out by Monarch are actually happening on some level. In fact, I assume they are. But to make blanket generalizations without proof...well, you'd at least need to qualify statements and give a reasonable basis for believing in the unprovable. It'll take a revolution to get much of the story, and that's only if the first act of the revolution is to confiscate shredders and hard drives!

by **marykmusic** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:53 pm

This, quoted from robertdreed, is great: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I think that one effective form of activism would be to personally purchase classic parapolitical books on the open market whenever the opportunity arises, and donate them to one's local public library. <hr></blockquote> Somebody's been donating some wonderful, eye-opening stuff to the Cottonwood Public Library; videos about the real story of 9-11, Credo Mutwa's interview by David Icke The Reptilian Agenda, as well as numerous interesting books. Thus, they are available through inter-library loan to any resident of the county or any student at the colleges here. What a great idea! By all means, if your Parenti books are too "heavy" to put them in your library, send them here. We've got some of his books and movies at our house, too. --MaryK

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:52 pm

Unfortunately, important books have been disappearing from libraries, especially ones about the history of US financing of fascism. Last year I found an article online warning people that spooks were purging a whole list of books from libraries. (darn, can't find the online warning article.) I graze Borders to see what the latest propaganda is from the spook publishing industry. When I find something genuine, like Peter Dale Scott or Alfred McCoy, I scoop it up for my own home library. I found 'The Search for the Manchurian Candidate' there and bought it. It disappeared from my car within 24 hours, probably because I left it unlocked and thieves looking for Christmas shopping booty lifted it. But that was a disturbing disappearance until I remembered my little automotive security lapse. Here's a 10 year-old article about the 'Disneyfication of History.' <a href="http://www.fno.org/nov96/thanks.html">www.fno.org/nov96/thanks.html</a> The Disneyfication of History: Why Books, Libraries and Librarians Remain Essential by Jamie McKenzie >snip< Media Specialists as Curators With so much information shifting to electronic and digital formats, the media specialist must now act as the guardian of artifacts such as pictures, objects, old manuscripts, taped interviews of local figures and many other items...

Guidelines for research

Guidelines for research

Re: Guidelines for research

Re: Guidelines for research

Re: Guidelines for research

Keeping their stories straight

Re: Guidelines -study psychological warfare tactics, rumors.

Re: Guidelines for research

Re: Keeping their stories straight

Re: Keeping their stories straight

Re: not that anyone cares.but

In the best of all possible worlds . . .

Re: In the best of all possible worlds . . .

Re: In the best of all possible worlds . . .

Libraries

Re: Libraries, easy to purge.

Who is online