Post by acptulsa on Oct 15, 2017 17:21:40 GMT -8
The phrase 'crazy conspiracy theorists' has become a cliché. But the fact is, people often have an open mind to the truth behind events. By the time September 11, 2001 came around, however, it became clear that the forces of conformity had perfected the two-pronged approach to keeping people from seriously considering, or at least, discussing at work and other places, the questionable details and disturbing evidence surrounding certain events.
On the one hand, or on the one prong, if you prefer, you have the Official Narrative, repeated over and over and over. This is certainly nothing new. Journalists from 1963 have often talked about the pressure put on them to stick to the Oone Gunman Narrative following the Kennedy assassination. You don't want to be responsible for rioting, they were told. The country needs to come together. You don't want to be responsible for national unity falling apart. By now the national media is a well-oiled machine. A well-fed, slick-over-substance media is unlikely to buck their corporate sponsors under any circumstances, and when Word comes down from On High, contrary viewpoints and details which don't fit the narrative get short shrift.
This is in stark contrast to the legions of videos which proliferate after events in the twenty-first century. Indeed, the media is so slick and smooth in defense of the corporate/government position that people have come to fancy themselves quite adept at spotting what comes out of the government and what does not. They are convinced anything that demonstrates the slightest criticism of, or disbelief in, the government narrative could not possibly come out of goverrnment. This leaves the door wide open for the most crude counter-intelligence. Indeed, Americans seem quite innocent of the entire concept of COINTEL. Even those who are familiar with the concept don't seem to be able to spot the stuff even if it bites them in the ass.
But the stuff is certainly out there. From 9/11 to Newtown to Las Vegas, the one thing you can certainly rely on is thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of internet posts of the most ridiculous nature, denying that dead people are dead and claiming that horrific events were completely staged. Aircraft documented by dozens of cameras turn into drones with holographic wings, blood turns to ketchup and other outlandish claims, each more disrespectful to the deceased than the last, fly. And people turn away from any evidence at all in droves.
It's a simple equation. Most people engage in binary thinking. The Official Narrative is on one side, and the Unofficial Narrative is on the other. When choosing which to believe, most people are not discriminating. The Official Narrative is monolithic, and they view the Unofficial Narrative as monolithic as well. This investigator may be credible, but they are on the same side as silly, screeching Alex Jones and countless videos overlaid with irritating, pretentious and unlistenable computer-generated voices. The Official Timeline may be full of holes, but if one silly videomaker fills one of those holes with goofy theories, those holes don't seem so damning on their own.
Binary thinking dictates not that the Official Narrative make sense, but only that it make more sense than the stupidest of the conspiracy theories. The Official Narrative need not be credible. It merely needs to be more credible than the most incredible stuff put out by what they perceive as the 'other side'. Binary thinking makes them content with the Lesser Evil.
So, if the officials wish to put out an Official Narrative which doesn't make a great deal of sense, that's no problem. All they have to do to cover their asses is put out a host of content which is even goofier. No one will believe the government or the corporations will criticize themselves so harshly. It doesn't occur to them that it does no one any harm to circulate criticism of themselves which is so silly as to make sane people laugh at it. At worst, it makes one look like a victim, and garner sympathy. At best, it causes the person who is exposed to it to lump all criticism of you in with it, and toss it all--credible criticism and goofy alike--in the same trash bag.
The strategy is as old as the hills. But as it doesn't occur to most people to do things like that, it doesn't occur to people that anyone could do it. Even when confronted by the evidence that it does occur to some people, they tend, in their horror, to shoot the messenger. The person who told them about this nefarious tactic is always the evil one; surely no one else could implement such a plot without bragging on their evil genius.
Hire enough internet trolls to make outrageous claims against you, and you can get away with the most ham-handed, psychopathic plot conceivable. All you have to do is make your critics look crazier than you are.
On the one hand, or on the one prong, if you prefer, you have the Official Narrative, repeated over and over and over. This is certainly nothing new. Journalists from 1963 have often talked about the pressure put on them to stick to the Oone Gunman Narrative following the Kennedy assassination. You don't want to be responsible for rioting, they were told. The country needs to come together. You don't want to be responsible for national unity falling apart. By now the national media is a well-oiled machine. A well-fed, slick-over-substance media is unlikely to buck their corporate sponsors under any circumstances, and when Word comes down from On High, contrary viewpoints and details which don't fit the narrative get short shrift.
This is in stark contrast to the legions of videos which proliferate after events in the twenty-first century. Indeed, the media is so slick and smooth in defense of the corporate/government position that people have come to fancy themselves quite adept at spotting what comes out of the government and what does not. They are convinced anything that demonstrates the slightest criticism of, or disbelief in, the government narrative could not possibly come out of goverrnment. This leaves the door wide open for the most crude counter-intelligence. Indeed, Americans seem quite innocent of the entire concept of COINTEL. Even those who are familiar with the concept don't seem to be able to spot the stuff even if it bites them in the ass.
But the stuff is certainly out there. From 9/11 to Newtown to Las Vegas, the one thing you can certainly rely on is thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of internet posts of the most ridiculous nature, denying that dead people are dead and claiming that horrific events were completely staged. Aircraft documented by dozens of cameras turn into drones with holographic wings, blood turns to ketchup and other outlandish claims, each more disrespectful to the deceased than the last, fly. And people turn away from any evidence at all in droves.
It's a simple equation. Most people engage in binary thinking. The Official Narrative is on one side, and the Unofficial Narrative is on the other. When choosing which to believe, most people are not discriminating. The Official Narrative is monolithic, and they view the Unofficial Narrative as monolithic as well. This investigator may be credible, but they are on the same side as silly, screeching Alex Jones and countless videos overlaid with irritating, pretentious and unlistenable computer-generated voices. The Official Timeline may be full of holes, but if one silly videomaker fills one of those holes with goofy theories, those holes don't seem so damning on their own.
Binary thinking dictates not that the Official Narrative make sense, but only that it make more sense than the stupidest of the conspiracy theories. The Official Narrative need not be credible. It merely needs to be more credible than the most incredible stuff put out by what they perceive as the 'other side'. Binary thinking makes them content with the Lesser Evil.
So, if the officials wish to put out an Official Narrative which doesn't make a great deal of sense, that's no problem. All they have to do to cover their asses is put out a host of content which is even goofier. No one will believe the government or the corporations will criticize themselves so harshly. It doesn't occur to them that it does no one any harm to circulate criticism of themselves which is so silly as to make sane people laugh at it. At worst, it makes one look like a victim, and garner sympathy. At best, it causes the person who is exposed to it to lump all criticism of you in with it, and toss it all--credible criticism and goofy alike--in the same trash bag.
The strategy is as old as the hills. But as it doesn't occur to most people to do things like that, it doesn't occur to people that anyone could do it. Even when confronted by the evidence that it does occur to some people, they tend, in their horror, to shoot the messenger. The person who told them about this nefarious tactic is always the evil one; surely no one else could implement such a plot without bragging on their evil genius.
Hire enough internet trolls to make outrageous claims against you, and you can get away with the most ham-handed, psychopathic plot conceivable. All you have to do is make your critics look crazier than you are.
