The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby o.catharnaigh on February 23rd, 2016, 9:05 am

This is a thread for the discussion of the best and most proper ways we can share with our loved ones and our friends the things we've learned in the age of the internet, in particular, media fakery. I'm not very good at helping people look through a different lens. But I love a lot of people, and I want them to see, or, rather, I want them to review what they think they saw, but I fail to do so. My hope is it's because I'm relatively new to the game, and other people who have more experience can share with those of us who have less experience, and maybe we can all learn together.

If I don't hear from anybody in awhile, I'll share the ways in which I completely failed, and maybe we can go from there.
o.catharnaigh
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: January 31st, 2016, 11:40 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby Apache on February 24th, 2016, 10:17 am

o.catharnaigh wrote:I want them to see, or, rather, I want them to review what they think they saw, but I fail to do so.


Is it your failure or is it theirs? As Philip K Dick said, reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it and if your loved ones won't believe in reality and prefer to believe in fakery, then ultimately there's not much you can do about that. If someone is not open-minded, you will get nowhere. Personally I don't impart facts of fakery to others in an adequate way when I am talking about it. I write it down in a much better way than when I speak. Some people speak much better than they write. We all need to find the best way to impart what we know and to accept that, for some people, verbal communication might not be the right method.

It is also worth bearing in mind that others might not welcome the information you are wanting to impart, especially if it explodes their view of the world or interferes in their self-interest. It is best not to take this personally or be upset by it, and to live with the fact that not everyone is willing to shift their view of reality. Small seeds can be planted, but it's then up to them to nurture that seed into full growth.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby SacredCowSlayer on February 24th, 2016, 3:49 pm

This is a copy and paste of one of my previous posts- I will add to it later when I get some "free" time:


In my experience it is best to start out with simple things when introducing a person to media fakery.

Traumatic events have a powerful affect on the brain. The hoaxers count on this to keep people from exercising any critical thinking about a given event.

So I like to start out with people by asking "if the news media and government were caught blatantly lying to you, they would lose their credibility right?" Once they agree I show them the LAX dummy video. Nine times out of ten I get a "are you sh!tting me!" kind of response. That opens the door wide open, and then I show them Robbie Parker smiling and laughing. That is always followed by a nearly identical response.

At that point I have established credibility for myself and simultaneously crushed whatever faith they had in the media. Most of the time they ask me for more examples, but I tell them to watch "We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook" and get back to me later.

When they do it is almost always accompanied with wanting to talk about it or them wanting to know what other events have been staged. That's when I tell them to go to cluesforum.

So here is where the gained credibility (usually some pre existing cred to be sure too) comes in handy. I warn them before going to CF that they will see things that will tempt them to scoff (I know I nearly did when I first saw questions about AIDS, nukes, etc.) but to understand that there are a lot of things under scrutiny at CF that we have always just accepted without ever really thinking about it.

It never fails that they contact me later saying something like "OMG 9/11 was faked?!?! And you never told me?!?!". They of course follow this up by admitting that they would have said I was crazy if I had told them at the start.

Note: Time and place is key. And one on one conversations are best. People are generally terrified of being different, so they won't even be able to think straight if they sense they are being watched and judged. That should go without saying.

Also Note: The 1 in 10 who believe the LAX dummy is real. . . they don't pass go and certainly don't collect $200. Good oxygen is simply wasted on such people.

I only post this because another forum member and I have been corresponding about this issue, and I occurred to me that others may benefit from it as well.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 238
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby Painterman on February 27th, 2016, 9:37 pm

Most people are in a hypnotic-traumatic trance induced by television, the radio, YouTube and other social engineering platforms. Snapping them out of said trance so they can see reality often requires more than talking (when they're not even listening, due to their being in a trance).

One workaround, to reach someone closed off to normal society by such a parasitical virtual reality, is to use the media to expose the media. Thus you create a paradox for your loved one so that to believe the media is to disbelieve the media. And so the spell is broken.

This is where September Clues is important, which explains the overdone (as usual), derisive use of the "no-planer" label by the campaign to neutralize the film - specifically, by the negating "against" side, as opposed to the co-opting "for" side, of this dialectically designed campaign - tipping us off as to which aspect most worries the PTB.

As is SOP in public relations, media propaganda has tried to reduce the people's concept of 9/11 to a simplistic set of emotionally charged images and slogans. The lynchpin of these Pavlovian cues are the shots of the Boeing airplanes hitting the towers. So what does it mean to the whole edifice of 9/11 lies, and media credibility in general, if those planes weren't even real? September Clues demonstrates the fakeness of the 9/11 planes in several ways, using the media to expose the media.

Though beware - the PTB didn't get where they are by failing to anticipate countermeasures. They've prepared "alternative media" backup fantasies for each mainstream fantasy: for example, the nihilistic "everything is fake" / "nothing is real" judo throw (using your own momentum against you) designed to recapture into ineffectual Fantasyland those still reeling from discovering the fakery being foisted on the public.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby Flabbergasted on February 28th, 2016, 5:29 pm

Painterman wrote:Though beware - the PTB didn't get where they are by failing to anticipate countermeasures. They've prepared "alternative media" backup fantasies for each mainstream fantasy: for example, the nihilistic "everything is fake" / "nothing is real" judo throw (using your own momentum against you) designed to recapture into ineffectual Fantasyland those still reeling from discovering the fakery being foisted on the public.

Wise words, Painterman.

Fields like medicine, which require a huge bulk of specialized knowledge and years of hands-on practice to discuss with reasonable competence, are particularly fertile. The currently active "engineering disease" thread is a good example. The topics are fascinating and urgent, but the slope into everything-is-a-lie fantasyland is steep and slippery.

(IC: to avoid misunderstanding, I am not criticizing individual posters and I continue to appreciate your contributions)
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 630
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby ICfreely on February 28th, 2016, 7:07 pm

“Make no mistake about it — enlightenment is a destructive process. It has nothing to do with becoming better or being happier. Enlightenment is the crumbling away of untruth. It’s seeing through the façade of pretense. It’s the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true.” ~ADYASHANTI

I'm conscientiously curious. Although I've never used phrases like "nothing is real" or "everything is fake" you guys insist on putting those words in my mouth in a round about way. How sad for you! :(
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby ICfreely on February 28th, 2016, 7:25 pm

How can one disseminate truth if one can’t (or is unwilling to) get to it in the first place?

But to get to the real truth, the real stuff that will have them scrambling to make abstractions of it, rather than the backasswards way it is now, we have to observe and use the senses we were blessed with. Presently, we are in a troublesome spot when we are not willing to confirm data for ourselves. So if we rely somewhat on the idea that their own competition over the centuries has revealed a bit of truth, you don't have to pick a theory that makes sense, you can pick one that suits your biases and your philosophies and world views and they will develop it for you. --Hoi Polloi


http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=485&start=3360#p2396597
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby Flabbergasted on February 28th, 2016, 7:35 pm

ICfreely wrote: [...]you guys insist on putting those words in my mouth in a round about way.

Sorry, I didn´t mean to.

The reason for my disclaimer was:
- You recently said you are a nihilist (despite using the word in quotation marks), and the post I was responding to happened to identify the nothing-is-real attitude as "nihilistic".
- In the same post ( viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1424&p=2399402#p2399402 ) you said you intend to focus your efforts henceforth on the "engineering disease" thread and related topics.

I figured my caveat about the slippery slope might easily be misconstrued by compounding these coincidences.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 630
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby ICfreely on February 28th, 2016, 7:55 pm

No worries, Flabbergasted.

You've established your credibility through your contributions. My post was mainly directed at the people who try to contemplate what their miniscule minds can't comprehend. The people who pretend not to read my posts but seem to always post right after me with their pseudo-philosophical feces. The know-nothing know-it-alls!

You're, most certainly, not one of them and I am anything but a nihilist!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby Seneca on February 29th, 2016, 10:15 am

Admins please move this post if there is a topic that is more appropriate.

I agree that it is possible that people aware of media fakery are being targeted to think that "everything is fake". This has obviously the potential to weaken our ability to cooperate with other honest people and share our experiences. It is important to find solutions. I don't think a good solution is to protect certain institutions from criticism or to blame individual posters for "focusing on uncertainty and doubt". (I haven't seen any answers to the questions adressed to Painterman in the 'What is fakery' topic).

Part of a solution would involve methods to authenticate photographs and videos. I don't know if this is possible but here is an app that is claiming to do that.
https://guardianproject.github.io/infor ... Guide.html

InformaCam is a system that uses the built-in sensors in modern smartphones for tracking movement, light and other environmental inputs, along with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and cellular network information to capture a snapshot of the environment around you, while you are taking a photo or video. This extra metadata (the data about the data!) helps verify and validate the date, time and location of capture, and provides an entirely new layer of context and meaning out of “invisible” energy for use in any way you choose. Finally digital signatures and encryption ensure that your media hasn’t been tampered with since capture and that it can only be seen by the people you choose.

Currently, you can use InformaCam by installing the CameraV app for Android smartphones. CameraV uses V for Verification, Veritas (Truth!) and Vaulted (secured!). It is also evokes the “V” hand sign for victory and peace.


 I know there are people with a better understanding than me. What do you think: can this technology prevent faked imagery or at least make it easier to detect it?
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 420
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby fubarfuthark on February 29th, 2016, 12:19 pm

I agree that it is possible that people aware of media fakery are being targeted to think that "everything is fake".

I think this is a real problem. One starts to believe that there is absolutely no real news at all. And no real science. And this can have REAL social consequences.

Not long ago I had a conversation with a left-wing friend of mine about 'islamophobia'. Although he is a relatively intelligent guy, he rehearsed the same old talking points. At one point in the conversation I dropped into the conversation that I consider that the media promote 'islamophobic' conspiracy theories and that Islam may well indeed be far more of a religion of peace than we are led to believe. This seemed to cause a total split in his reasoning. I tried to point out to him that if he believed that 'them mooslims' as autonomous actors were responsible for these 'things' like Charlie Hebdo, 9/11, Woolwich et al without examining the circumstances or, indeed if these events were real (some of these pass out of public consciousness, the gasworks attack in France, the Tunisia beach shooting while others are more anchored) then there would actually be genuine grounds for believing that Islam posed a threat. At the same time, believing in these stories seems to me to actually contains the germs of genuine hatred/racism, or at least susceptibility to it. The irony is that this guy is a leftwing pro-Palestine activist. Some people are very very confused. He responded by saying that humans need an agreed body of knowledge and experience about which they can conduct discourse and that undermining said body of knowledge actually is reactionary because it limits the possibility of engaged political action. He also said that belief in conspiracy theories is elitist (you fall for it but i dont) and actually ends up supporting one's own prejudices because, by undermining public discourse one ends up only promoting one's own personal beliefs, whatever they might be. But then again, he is a self-proclaimed Marxist! :wacko:

I had also had a similar experience when I said I had my doubts about some of the sex scandals surrounding 'mooslims' at the moment, that some of the perp shots look sim-my, that there are a few magic numbers in the reporting. Köln, in particular, seemed quite stage-y to me. But one cant go too far with this, there DOES seem to be a migration crisis of some description and for some reason...

With regards the dissemination of information, I have often tried to focus on the positive. Rather than stoking up paranoia about being lied to, I have often tried to find ways of, say, pointing out that there may exist wonderful medicines, experiences, groups of people, even that we are conditioned to be afraid of. For a little while I thought that alternative cosmology and NASA fakery also fell into that category but now i am not so sure. I thought, particularly with alternative/esoteric-y people that to try and raise questions about the chiaroscuro of the moon or the perceived distance of the sun you would be on fairly safe, apolitical ground. Does not seem to be true. People love their CGI planets, possibly even more than they love their tyrant lizard kings. Too much Star Wars and Jurassic Park.

I have even encountered belief in extraterrestrials as a kind of species-level virtue-signalling, the reasoning going 'I think it is arrogant for us to think that we are the only ones, that we are unique and the only planet and the only ones who have evolved (sic) to this degree'. Increasingly, i have come to see this reasoning actually functioning as the moral component of littering, vulgar materialism, trips to Dubai, gluttony, ignorant blaspheming (a la Dawkins, Hitchens) and general selfishness.

ICFreely wrote something (in the Einstein thread, i think) about the 'ball earth' being a primarily a 'social problem', that is to say that it could be said to be at the root of quite some social ills. Looking at the spinning earth logos at the beginning of films and feeling trapped, insignificant and also, shot through with the amorality of a mechanistic being at the end of a chain of 'evolution' that began in the primordial soup. Trying to cut through this conditioning with some basic reasoning and evidence can sometimes even seem cruel.

The problem is, there is SO much conditioning that convincing an intelligent person to reason things through to the end can actually have unintended consequences. Like unleashing a wave of paranoia that leads them to find comfort in things like this (i have seen this one in a work colleague, not my doing)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CYS6nbtdMY

Anyway speaking of work, I better go to it.
fubarfuthark
Member
 
Posts: 60
Joined: February 15th, 2016, 1:20 pm

The Philosophy of...

Postby o.catharnaigh on March 15th, 2016, 7:07 am

I haven't quite come up with an appropriate finish to "The Philosophy of ..." But it would relate to the philosophy of approaching your friends, your neighbors, and anyone else we come into contact that might still believe they are being wholly informed when they turn on the news. The reason I start this thread is simple: I am having a hard time discussing media fakery with other people. I know it's hard to convince people they've been duped. Ridicule definitely doesn't work. And, surprisingly, a clear, concise relaying of verifiable history doesn't work (not as often as it should, at least). Ridicule makes people harden their mind, and sometimes their fists. A clear, concise relaying of verifiable history? I seem to almost always get a "rolling of eyes" on that one. What gives? I know what gives. I'm well aware of the term "normalcy bias", but, surely, if we put our minds together, we could come up with a pragmatic approach to overcoming this "normalcy bias" enough to get our loved ones to "see the light," so to speak. If group A can come together to overthrow a world's order, surely group B can come together to counteract group A's actions. The natural world tells me this is so. Am I wrong?


**********************************************************************
CM

I thought this post would be best placed in your other, very similar, thread on this issue.
o.catharnaigh
Member
 
Posts: 14
Joined: January 31st, 2016, 11:40 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby ICfreely on March 15th, 2016, 9:43 am

o.catharnaigh wrote: Am I wrong?


Am I Cymon? That was actually quite profound!
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby pov603 on March 15th, 2016, 6:30 pm

Maybe it is best to focus on the anomalies and/or absurdities [not in any particular order of importance or relevance] i.e.:
- nose in/nose out [that has perked up the eyes/ears of some people I've shown, one being one of my sisters],
- aviation fuel doesn't melt steel,
- ask people: [You] How many towers fell? [Them] Two? [You] No, three. [Them] What? I didn't know that! - this actually happened to me/us two days ago whilst on holiday in Paso Robles, California [!],
- The BBC reported and interviewed some of the actual 'hijackers' still alive in KSA [I know this one indirectly still assumes there were planes, and unfortunately almost lends some credence to the Beeb but it shows the absurdity of the whole situation and the fact that there are 'elements' of this farce that people may still not be aware,
- the Beeb showing the Salomon/WTC7 building hadn't fallen though they were reporting 'live' that it had with it still being in the background [I know this may add some credence to events being as the MSM tell us but it shows either the MSM's arrogance at parading something in full view that they know to be false - plus this has stumped some naysayers I know when I've shown it to them via YouTube],
- the US Defence missing '2.3 trillion dollar ' and 'enemies within' speech by Rumsfeld on 10th September 2001,
- freefall speed of towers collapsing, 9 & 11 seconds of course...,
- Larry Silverstein and the double insurance from 3+ billion USD to 7+ billion USD,

I have found, not too often unfortunately and less that I would have ever thought, that it only needs one 'piece' of information to register with someone as being 'untrue/conflicting/confused' to send them questioning more and more about the events from that day and, more importantly, believing less and less about what they had been told and led to believe.
I, of course, wouldn't know where to start but I do wonder whether we could add to this site a 'Top Ten', without trying to 'trivialise' matters, of absurdities/anomalies etc so that newbies could view and/or lurkers could read and digest.
It would be along the lines of freeze frame photos [Nose In/Nose Out] and one-liners or Q & A etc.
Anyway, ramble over, now for my holiday ramble in the woods...
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 717
Joined: June 30th, 2011, 9:02 pm

Re: The Philosophy of the Dissemination of Truth

Postby Apache on March 16th, 2016, 9:03 am

o.catharnaigh wrote:it would relate to the philosophy of approaching your friends, your neighbors, and anyone else we come into contact that might still believe they are being wholly informed when they turn on the news. The reason I start this thread is simple: I am having a hard time discussing media fakery with other people. I know it's hard to convince people they've been duped.


It wasn't 9/11 or media fakery that convinced me that there was something wrong with world, it was discovering that money is created out of nothing.

Hat tip to Hoi Poloi's post and in connection with usury, here is a great quote from Richard Kotlarz:

economictree.org/Usury_Superstition.html

Progressive activists generally have a superficial understanding of the term, but do not fully appreciate the depth and breadth of usury’s lethal workings. My activist friends tell me that we can get to this arcane “banking issue” later; we have more immediate concerns like social justice, environmental destruction and an ongoing war to attend to now. What they resist coming to grips with is that usury is not merely another item on a list of issues that can await its turn. It is, rather, the engine that drives all issues, whether they are nominally economic or not. Addressing it is a prerequisite to being truly relevant in any direction. “Getting it” on usury would add a crucial depth and context of understanding, and render progressive exertions truly fruitful at long last.


barnabyisright.com/2015/06/19/hermetic-magick-in-double-entry-accounting-and-finance/

So long as the flow of money in the economy is fast enough, no one notices that the game is actually rigged. That is, no one notices that there is insufficient money in the system to pay interest.
Apache
Member
 
Posts: 168
Joined: October 22nd, 2015, 12:02 pm

Next

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests