Dis-information: a philosophical perspective

[John White]

Good evening everyone

Firstly, Id like to just thank everyone I've interacted with so far for the welcome I have been given on the site, and I'd like to let it known its appreciated

To everyone else who i havnt had a chance to get to know yet, this is the thread that I started on at SOTT;

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1575

Ive been digesting a LOT of information, firstly from the recent podcasts, and secondly from the detailed threads here in the COINTELPRO and dis-information section.

Ive found a seriously impressive level of detail, well reasoned posts with a commanding grip on the subject matter, and certainly convincing evidance that SOTT in general, and Laura and her team in particular, has had some truly vile stuff being wanged at it from diverse areas of the global alternative information community

As promised, I have been perculating all of this data, and this thread represents my initial attempt to formulate a perspective on this established history and share in the spirit of truthseeking what I have understood from all of the above

To do so, I would like to take a little time to describe how I generally form my personal world view

My primary interest is in the nature of conciousness. I am a "powerful" (for what thats worth) intuitive and accomplished dowser, and much of, if not most of, my understanding of life comes from my connection to universal conciousness, decoding the infinite energy of the cosmos through the tool of my brain into thoughts, emotions, and forms of expression

In that, I am not so concerned with what we think as in how we think it. I recognise that reason is not the start of the process of understanding the world, but the end product of a far wider set of influences. Two children can look at the same tree, and then turn around and describe that tree to their parents stood behind them. But if one child is brought up for example, as chinese, and the other as english, not only will the same object be decoded into the product of different words (language), but the inference and tone conveyed by that language will also be subtly be different...as will the nature and feel of the thoughts that produce that language...to say nothing of how they may feel about the tree before the process of starting to construct thought and speach even begins...and that says nothing of the variables of how their respectives parents decode (understand) what is being said to them...

In short, two people may look at the very same object (or evidance) and see two very different things: perhaps irreconcievably different: yet still share the basic qualities of honesty and truthfullness regardless of how "different" their perceptions appear to be: it isnt all down simply to "good will"

What then is truth? And where is it to be found?

From my perspective of the world, truth is not in absolutes, facts, evidance or any other form of "proof" definatively

Rather, it is in the balance of probabilities

And the balance of probabilities is not a fixed concrete postition: rather it is fluid and responsive to changes in the world, yet consistant with an individuals inner character and qualities...which, of course, can equally grow

Having (hopefully) given some insight into where Im coming from, heres what Ive found withinn my own consideration of whats presented here at SOTT

There are some areas in which I find instant and total agreement with the POV established on the site

Certainly the rational and models used to predict and understand how intelligence agancies and dis-information agents operate is insightful and most likely accurate...its also backed up and confirmed by many other info sources

And particular individuals, such as Daryl bradford Smith, who my opinion of is, well.... low

The behaviour of Vincent Bridges and ATS is also obviously reprehensable

Other areas there is more divergence on though: particualrily with regard to individuals like Alex jones and David Icke: I see the same evidance but find different conclusions: certainly, less certain ones

And thats a bit of a "problem": in that I'm hesitant to "argue the toss" and attempt to prove anything: for one thing, that would be disrespectful of the membership agreement Ive made with SOTT. Getting into that kind of discussion would also be a wasted opportunity to communicate with what I feel is a sincere and genuine community of truthseekers: at least, thats how it seems to me

Heres another aspect of the problem of understanding dis-information and counterintelpro: the burden of ultimate proof

Even where the evidance seems particularily damning, like with Simon Gray and ATS, to be certain one would have to:

Intercept every phone call, email, text and other form of communication

Evesdrop every conversation

Tail every movement

AND do the same for every person he comes into contact with

Now, if we could do that, then definative incontravertable proof of being a dis-ibnfo agent could be acheived

But at a cost:

The cost of, essentially, becoming an intelligence agency (although a poorly funded and under-resourced one)

Reminds me of the wisdom:

"Be careful! lest we become what we oppose!"

I certainly agree that nobody is above being questioned, and that its healthy to do so, and I applaud the industry of everyone here for tackling this issue head on and making,to be honest, far more progress than Ive seen anywhere else at trying to get to the heart of that other timeless classic question "what the bloody hell is going on???"

And I am also always open and willing to listen and learn more: all sacred cows die in the end, so its best not to be overly sentimental or attached to any public personality

However, what i would personally like to explore as a contribution to the work of this site is:

"What is it about disinfo that makes it work?"

and

"How can individuals learn to guard and protect themselves from such undue influence"

Becuase that has to be a core message: and understanding and copmmunicating that is surely relevant to every good hearted human being, and perhaps potentially a blow to the very effectivness of such methods, increasing the chances of making the global desire and longing for healing, justice, equality, peace and trnasformation truly unstoppable

With that in mind, I await your feedback, and look forward to, hopefully, an interesting and productive conversation

Regards, John

(PS I cant guarentee my available time for the next few days, so initial responses may be slow, but I will get there)

 

[Keit]

Hey John, interesting topic. I think we talked about it somewhere on the forum.
But I am wondering about something (and my intentions are not to offend you or something, just making an observation)
I've noticed that you use very complicated words and proper sentence structure (complicated for a non english speaker like me) but you make very obvious grammar mistakes. Something that should be noticed and overlooked with such vocabulary.
Is there a reason? Or simply a loss of spell checker?

 

[vinny]

"What is it about disinfo that makes it work?"

Thanks for a thoughtful post John. This deserves some careful study, (I'm looking forward to Loboczewski's book!), but I think an initial simple suggestion might be: because disinfo works on a deeply ingrained destructive principle. There is no genuine 'outflowing' creativity. It is designed to be entropic and chaos-creating. Its a lot easier to knock down a house of cards than to build it up.

edit: sorry missed a bit... (plus typos )

"How can individuals learn to guard and protect themselves from such undue influence"

In the first instance by learning as much as possible about it. In the same way as finding out how to protect from diseases. In fact, it is analogous to a disease. IMHO

 

[John White]

Hey John, interesting topic. I think we talked about it somewhere on the forum.
But I am wondering about something (and my intentions are not to offend you or something, just making an observation)
I've noticed that you use very complicated words and proper sentence structure (complicated for a non english speaker like me) but you make very obvious grammar mistakes. Something that should be noticed and overlooked with such vocabulary.
Is there a reason? Or simply a loss of spell checker?

Hi Keit, sure if weve met up over on "the forum" then I'm sure your familiar that the above represents essentially core themes with me

With regard to the grammer, I have an ideosyncratic approach to language and view rules as more like guidelines. Im also a lad from a council estate, who never bothered too much with formal education and got out into the world at 16. In addition I tend naturally to tune my expression to the feel of the environment Im posting in

As Robert Anton Wilson used to say : "communciation is only possible between equals": and resonnance increases equality

Hope that helps there

(And yes Im aware that RAW is somthing of an Illuminati denier: still, credit where credits due)

 

[John White]

"What is it about disinfo that makes it work?"

Thanks for a thoughtful post John. This deserves some careful study, (I'm looking forward to Loboczewski's book!), but I think an initial simple suggestion might be: because disinfo works on a deeply ingrained destructive principle. There is no genuine 'outflowing' creativity. It is designed to be entropic and chaos-creating. Its a lot easier to knock down a house of cards than to build it up.

edit: sorry missed a bit... (plus typos )

"How can individuals learn to guard and protect themselves from such undue influence"

In the first instance by learning as much as possible about it. In the same way as finding out how to protect from diseases. In fact, it is analogous to a disease. IMHO

Thanks sleepyvinny

Yes, there is something of the nature of a virus about dis-information isn't there?

Its insidious...pervasive...impossible to completely eliminate: and both parasitic and agressive to otherwise healthy, motivated and affirming communities

I feel that your definition of a deeply ingrained destructive principle both characterises the nature of the intent behind dis-information and suggests that dis-information can be as much an automatic reflex as a deliberate strategy

As this thread progresses, I'd like to explore that more, and also what it is about the recipiant of dis-informatio that makes him or her vunerable to it

Is it as simple as "trust no-one think for yourself"?

I've got a guest for the evening now, so Im afraid Im out of time here. Id like to encourage others to bring forward their perspectives here and look forward to picking this conversation up later

Have a good one all!

 

[Keit]

"What is it about disinfo that makes it work?"

Hmm...this is something worthwhile to think about.
Once I knew a man who said that by believing in something, people unconsciously try to reinforce hold on their reality. Their set of rules. And the fact is, it isnt' theirs at all. It's an ilussion, something that was imposed on them. And maybe the need to reinforce comes from fear.
Do you familiar with Asimov short story "Nightfall" about civilization that was born again every 2000 years, because they never had full eclipse (only once in 2000 years) and never saw stars? So they perceived stars as bringers of armageddon. They were going insane and destroying everything. Only small portion survived because they started to question the reality. To question dogmas.
The fact is, unknown drove them crasy. This was and is a greatest fear. Make an experiment. Ask people you know if they think about possibility that sun will not rise tomorrow? And what will they do if it will happen. Yes, there is a saying "live the day". But there is a saying, and there is a fear of the unknown everybody try to avoid.

Another aspect is logic. I also find it interesting that you can present different logical explanation to the same matter. Logic and perception is different in other countries. It's a result of cultural and environmental conditioning that eventually change the very mind.

But the topic about "facts" is much more complicated. I don't think that scientific fact will be different in different contries. BUT it is possible to "bent" those rules in very specific places where people's perceptions "accept" such "flexibilities". For example Roerich (I think) writings about levitation by sound in Tibet.
Yet, I see those "facts" as very different from Pentagon strike facts.

As Robert Anton Wilson used to say : "communciation is only possible between equals": and resonnance increases equality

Does the moon exists if there is no one to look at? (paraphrase on something I read in Robert Anton Wilson's book "Quantum Psychology". In this case: does the world exist because there is some ever watchful eye that taking care of it? And if it's blinks or have to go to the bathroom? What then?:)

 

[vinny]

As this thread progresses, I'd like to explore that more, and also what it is about the recipiant of dis-informatio that makes him or her vunerable to it

Is it as simple as "trust no-one think for yourself"?

Actually I think that approach has its problems - the "trust no one" part. It has a rather 'closing down of opportunites' feel to it, if you see what I mean. I think "keep your eyes peeled" would be a better way to put it.

However, "Think for yourself" is spot on. A person becomes far more vulnerable when they are not bothered about thinking for themselves, but are quite happy to accept a 'ready made solution'. This is one of my biggest problems with organised religion. It is also one of the biggest strengths of the SOTT/QFG team, OSIT, that they don't advocate 'devoteeism'. This might not be apparent at a superficial level, but there is all the difference in the world between a group of people who have arrived at a common (or at least overlapping) understanding due to a colinear goal, versus blind faith.

Ifeel that your definition of a deeply ingrained destructive principle both characterises the nature of the intent behind dis-information and suggests that dis-information can be as much an automatic reflex as a deliberate strategy

Another thing I'd like to bring in here, is the phrase that really stuck with me, when starting to learn about the whole psychopathy and pathocracy thing which is (paraphrasing from memory):

the germ does not envisage the death that it is bringing to the body it inhabits and infects, and therefore to itself

It was worded better than that, but you get the gist. Even at a 'higher intelligence' level, such as that of conscious cointelpro operatives, there may be a kind of endemic short-sightedness about consequences of actions, beyond a certain 'self interested' event horizon. This may be a weakness that can be used to defeat it.

 

[Guest]

the germ does not envisage the death that it is bringing to the body it inhabits and infects, and therefore to itself


Reminiscent of a William Burroughs essay I only vaguely remember about the word being a virus. I find the connection between one's consciousness and the arising of language itself very mysterious and elusive. I don't mean historically, rather than the arising of wrods in one's mind.

 

[Guest]

An alternative angle I was just considering though is that these dark influences are not infallible and for argument's sake lets assume Alex Jones is a disinformer. Well awareness of all the 911 stuff and where that ends up leading to such as the Franklin Case and so on...well everything really, for me is a very recent phenomenon which sprung from typing in 911 in Youtube and seeing Alex Jones Predicts 911. And then I went on and on from there and so have ended up here!