Conspiracy Theory: The tar brush of ignorance.

Tao_Equus

Interfaith Forums
Messages
5,826
Reaction score
4
Points
0
Location
Edinburgh, scotland
Conspiracy theory. Do these two words have you reading on or tuning out? Do they mean to you the possibility of revealed truths or the fevered imaginings of the near psychotic?

Conspiracy Theory has become a highly pejorative term thrown out flippantly by those accused as though this was the only explanation required. A tar brush of impunity from answering often valid and substantive questions. In Chomsky's film "Manufacturing Consent" and in his book "Hegemony or Survival" he claims that a genuine investigation of conspiracy has been rendered meaningless to the wider population by a media branding of that term. And I think this is true. So how do we bring genuine and independent investigative research back in from the fringes?

The only way I can think of is to rescue the truth is to wrestle the means to propagate it from the corporate media. The independence of the mainstream press is a lie. They have been demonstrated by hundreds of thousands of examples to promote a politically motivated bias and that this collusion is specifically designed to manufacture consent or apathy. What we need is a concerted campaign to remove altogether from our airwaves the singular viewpoint and to enshrine in law the obligation to have the contrary view equally expressed. Here in the UK only Channel 4 has been doing just that, in a limited way, by transmission of programming like the alternative to the Queens Christmas Day speech, a speech by President Ahmedinejad of Iran. But this has to go much further.

Freedom of speech is meant to be one of the fundamentally defining characteristics of democracy. And as such if the popular press is solely in the hands of self serving elites that fundamental benchmark of democracy is void. We have to remove from these elites the means to control information. We have to make the dissemination of information an endeavour open to the highest levels of scrutiny and deliberate misrepresentation, or omission of highly relevant knowns, a punishable crime with severe penalties. Advertising or sponsorship and the reduction of news to meaningless soundbites of rehearsed propaganda has to be replaced by genuine debate. How do we do this? I need ideas as I personally want to begin campaigning for just that. I am tired of posting on sites like the BBC public record facts only to have them removed. (For example stating that the Cheif UN weapons inspectors saying unequivocally prior to the invasion that Iraq had no WMD, deleted by the BBC. Such deletions are deliberate manipulation of truth.).

So as well as your comments and ideas I invite any tips on the existance of groups dedicated to such a cause.
 
So as well as your comments and ideas I invite any tips on the existance of groups dedicated to such a cause.

They will have to recognize the problem in all its dimensions, which
none of these groups fully do. If they did, they would realize that the
problem goes well beyond any one government, or any single political
arrangement. The problem is societal, and it is deep seated.

Any attempt to "reform" the system from the inside is useless,
and a "revolution" is out of the question as society is already
on life support.


In Chomsky's film "Manufacturing Consent" and in his book "Hegemony or Survival" he claims that a genuine investigation of conspiracy has been rendered meaningless to the wider population by a media branding of that term.
Chomsky is great as an introduction, but that's pretty much it.
I would recommend "Understanding Chomsky" for a good summary
of all his thoughts. But ultimately, his anarcho-syndicalist viewpoint
really begins to show his idealistic tendencies, limiting his entire
judgment/outlook.

Freedom of speech is meant to be one of the fundamentally defining characteristics of democracy. And as such if the popular press is solely in the hands of self serving elites that fundamental benchmark of democracy is void. We have to remove from these elites the means to control information. We have to make the dissemination of information an endeavour open to the highest levels of scrutiny and deliberate misrepresentation, or omission of highly relevant knowns, a punishable crime with severe penalties. Advertising or sponsorship and the reduction of news to meaningless soundbites of rehearsed propaganda has to be replaced by genuine debate. How do we do this? I need ideas as I personally want to begin campaigning for just that. I am tired of posting on sites like the BBC public record facts only to have them removed. (For example stating that the Cheif UN weapons inspectors saying unequivocally prior to the invasion that Iraq had no WMD, deleted by the BBC. Such deletions are deliberate manipulation of truth.).
It is a myth that CNN and Fox news is responsible for the ignorance of
the world. People allow themselves to be led into these lies. They
believe what they want to believe. This is the reason why people like
Chomsky are ultimately only scratching the surface. Chomsky's hypothesis
is that people allow themselves to be led by tyrants because the tyrants
create an atmosphere of fear, and in a survival mode the weak always
gather around the strong. This idea is only partly true and hides the real
causes underneath the proccess. The real questions remain unanswered:
Why do people gather behind tyrants in a state of fear? What is the nature
of the tyrant? What is the real "fear" of the weak?
 
Ohhhh... so now you are an expert on Chomsky because you have read something by two 'invisible' authors who appear to have published no other work but a critique of Chomsky. (what qualifies them to do so, who were their sponsors?) Well I have read quite a few of his books for myself. I do not always agree with him by any means but I, and any half-way litterate, person is perfectly capable of 'understanding chomsky" by themselves. He writes for a genral audience not an academic one.

Where are the general population, forced into exhausting work schedules and fed intellectual pigswill for entertainment AND brainwashed from birth into accepting power orientated religion, meant to access independent information when 95% of the media are owned by the corporations? Chomsky has now done several detailed studies of political reportage in the US that have demonstrated unequivocally a link between state sponsership of facist regimes, US arms sales and a change in the reporting in the mass media. Studies that show beyond all doubt that power dictates what you will read. It is only very recently with mass access to the internet that alternative news sources have become available. But with the US school system pumping out intellectual retards most of them are unequipped to even think to look. For the near 80% of Americans retarded by religious indoctrination and compounded by nationalist flag waving blindnes they would not know the truth if it came up and slapped them.
 
and any half-way litterate, person is perfectly capable of 'understanding chomsky" by themselves. He writes for a genral audience not an academic one.


.....Ohhhh... so now you are an expert on Chomsky because you have read something by two 'invisible' authors who appear to have published no other work but a critique of Chomsky. (what qualifies them to do so, who were their sponsors?)

Understanding Chomsky is a book... by Noam Chomsky.
It's just edited by two editors. Its a summary of most of his former books.

It's not a critique.

I told you before Tao: spend less time crafting personal attacks and more
time understanding whats going on around you.



p.s.

For your information by the way, the authors which relate closely to what
I said wrote well before Chomsky even came on the scene and are
much more astute then Chomsky ever was. Lewis Mumford, Herbert
Marcuse, and I am reading Spengler right now, he seems to be making
a similar point but I will reserve judgment until I am finished.

All of these authors are dead and buried and could have cared less
about a pop star like Chomsky.
 
So as well as your comments and ideas I invite any tips on the existance of groups dedicated to such a cause.

I think finances will ultimately be your biggest barrier for your goals.

I think your solution will have something to do with Internet.

Maybe rocket science isn`t needed to figure this out though ..

check out: KCRW 89.9 FM | Next Generation Internet Radio for Music, Arts and NPR News | Santa Monica, CA - KCRW
These guys are not part of the loop if they haven`t changed.
 
Freedom of speech is meant to be one of the fundamentally defining characteristics of democracy. And as such if the popular press is solely in the hands of self serving elites that fundamental benchmark of democracy is void. We have to remove from these elites the means to control information. We have to make the dissemination of information an endeavour open to the highest levels of scrutiny and deliberate misrepresentation, or omission of highly relevant knowns, a punishable crime with severe penalties.

This sounds like political control of free markets which is rarely smiled upon from any quarter.

So far as I see it there are two clear options:

1. Bring together people to create a single independent editorial publication, kind of like New Internationalist, but bigger. Trouble is, you can be guaranteed that the moment there are editorial decisions, someone will accuse of censorship. Without editorial controls, there is just unfiltered junk. The internet is an easy low-cost way to publish.

2. Alterantively, just persuade anyone who believes in unwelcome control of the media just buy shares in media companies - Murdoch's companies have seen bad declines in share prices, making them increasingly accessible for anyone who wants them. All you need is enough ownership to ensure majority voting. However, whether the shareholders can agree on details is another matter.
 
It is a myth that CNN and Fox news is responsible for the ignorance of
the world. People allow themselves to be led into these lies. They
believe what they want to believe. This is the reason why people like
Chomsky are ultimately only scratching the surface. Chomsky's hypothesis
is that people allow themselves to be led by tyrants because the tyrants
create an atmosphere of fear, and in a survival mode the weak always
gather around the strong. This idea is only partly true and hides the real
causes underneath the proccess. The real questions remain unanswered:
Why do people gather behind tyrants in a state of fear? What is the nature
of the tyrant? What is the real "fear" of the weak?

Perhaps what we need are braver people. I wonder if the Gurkha have these kinds of problems?
 
Perhaps what we need are braver people. I wonder if the Gurkha have these kinds of problems?


Braver yes, but in a different sense.
but sadly all of this ... its a moot point anyway...
 
Freedom of speech is meant to be one of the fundamentally defining characteristics of democracy.

If anyone could only explain that to Western-Europeans... Political correctness has now become so extreme that an animal rights activist in France got sentenced for comparing animal slaughter with the Holocaust and a German far-right activist got sentenced for singing folk songs with politically incorrect texts.

What's next? Jailtime for those people who are against gay marriage or abortion?
 
Back
Top