Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The black hole created by disinfo and cointelpro

Disinformation (Disinfo):

"Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or propagation of malicious rumours and fabricated intelligence. In the context of espionage or military intelligence, it is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. It also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless."

definition


Cointelpro (Counter Intelligence Program):

"COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was a program of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. Although covert operations have been employed throughout FBI history, the formal COINTELPRO operations of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against organizations that were (at the time) considered to have politically radical elements, ranging from those whose stated goal was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government (such as the Weathermen); non-violent civil rights groups such as Martin Luther King Jr.'s Southern Christian Leadership Conference; and violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party. The founding document of COINTELPRO directed FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders."

definition

The two words mentioned above, Disinfo, and Conintelpro, are tossed around by the truth movement, like you or I would speak of the weather. The issue I have with its use, aside from its OVERuse, is with the paranoia behind it. Actually I should be pleased, as in many ways it has been the road block that has kept the truthers from promoting and selling their snake oil to the masses, any more than they already have.

Here is my issue. Everyone in the truth movement, thinks that others within their movement are "Disinfo" or "Cointelpro".

The "Planers" call the "No-planers" disinfo, the no-planers call the planers the same. The "pod" believers are called disinfo, by some, while others call the PFT or CIT/Pentacon disinfo. My point is this...if all of these groups are disinfo, then who is telling the truth...you got it, no one.

Now this, in a totally illogical way, makes sense to me, as I think they are all promoting lies and baseless opinion. However, from the pov of the truther, how do you reconcile this? who do you believe if you are standing on the outside, doubting 9/11, but not sure why?

Tarpley calls Jenny Sparks disinfo, Major Tom has a whole listing for Disinfo. Alex Jones has called just about everybody disinfo at one point or another...

So in a strange way I feel bad for the beginning truther, standing at the state fair infront of a row of snake oil stands, not able to choose, with all the salesmen calling the others liars...

I wonder, if you put all the truthers in a room together, and got them to yell out loud who they think is disinfo/cointelpro, would the cancelling result in the formation of a black hole?

13 Comments:

Blogger Jason said...

You probably already realize this (or maybe not), but what you've described is an obvious 'false dilemma'. Unsurprisingly, there are a couple other issues, as well.

First, your "truther" stereotype only covers the kids who hang out in the LC forum, or who show up places on the 11th of each month wearing well-traveled black t-shirts. When it comes to them, I think your analysis is spot-on; however, they're only a very vocal minority.

I have friends who understand that the OT is just a lie, yet none of them have ever even mentioned "disinfo" to me (nor have I mentioned it to them). Just so you know- these are well-educated people - respected members of the community.

So.. can you guess which "snake oil" stand they wound up choosing at the state fair? None of the above - they didn't go to the state fair (nor did I). They did their own research, formed their own opinion, and that was it. See, it's a waste of time to get caught-up in the speculation around what did happen, when all you need to know is what didn't.

You don't present that option in your blog entry - hence, a false dilemma.

11:04 PM  
Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Tarpley, Tom Kost, are grown adults and academics, yet both have mentioned it. Alex Jones is a grown Adult, and he never stops mentioning it. Morgan Reynolds, James Fetzer, all grown up, well educated...

So while I agree they are vocal, it seems to be a large number of the leaders of the movement who are shouting it.

Please do not misunderstand my blog posts for debate...they are not. If you wish to say it is a false dilemma, fine, but this is not a debate, it was an opinion on the movement, and why it spins its wheels...

Thanks for posting.

TAM:)

8:17 AM  
Blogger ewing2001 said...

Brainless people always cry to the river ;
Watch "september clues" and check FCS.shortURL.com
before you drivel more garbage

2:10 PM  
Blogger Jason said...

Sure, I won't misunderstand your blog posts as debate; however, your argument is still fallacious.

Speaking of "not being a debate", in my opinion, you use blog entries like this one to reinforce certain ideas/stereotypes to yourself. Like your truther stereotype - you say that they all talk about disinfo, they all (at minimum) know of these "leaders", etc.

Without this type of reinforcement, it's harder for you to ignore the fact that not everyone who believes the "OT is a lie" is even a member of the "truth movement". Heck, the majority of them have probably never even heard of the truth movement (by name, at least). They don't wear black t-shirts, they don't post in the LC forum, etc (as mentioned previously).

Once you start considering those people, I would imagine it's harder to find those reasons to ignore/dismiss evidence, because you can't say, "well, the only people who believe this stuff are dumb kids".

So yes, I completely understand why you're not interested in turning this into a debate. That would defeat the whole purpose.

1:43 AM  
Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Jason;

I appreciate your attempt to psychoanalyze me, but it is kind hard to get an accurate picture of me without knowing me as a person, and without knowing a little more about me.

I create this blog to voice things that bother me. I do not do it to reinforce my own beliefs, or to prop my self up with some manufactured intellectual soap box.

The "truth movement", from my perspective, includes anyone who actively posts on-line and/or protests in RL against the official account of the 9/11 attacks. It is a very diverse group, for sure, but my opinion still holds that the factions, at least their leaders, are constantly referring to each other as disinfo...that is what the OP is about.

I realize that there are some less active, and others more active, and that there is great variation in what is believed from "truther" to "truther". I have a good friend who is a truther. He does not argue online, but he does promote his beliefs. We have agreed to disagree, and we are both fine with it.

I have no problem with debating, I am just not doing it (A) with such a grand, purposely generalizing topic as the OP, and (B) I try to avoid debating on Blogs, as it is not a great format for it...you know where I hang out (JREF), and if you or others want to debate, I can be found there.

Thanks, as always for taking the time to comment.

TAM:)

9:03 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

Hold on.. what exactly is wrong with this format when it comes to debate?

Could it be that debating 1-on-1 isn't as much fun as 100-on-1? Is it harder to overwhelm people and drive them away when you don't have 99 allies adding noise into the discussion?

You're not fooling anybody. If your argument wasn't fallacious, you wouldn't need to go to such lengths to avoid discussing it.

4:14 AM  
Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

That is not true. You may think what you like. I debate the issues ONLY FOR THE FENCE SITTERS.

There are very few people who read my blog. That said, what exactly, related to my GENERALIZATION in the OP, do you wish to debate?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that the argument of Disinfo, and who is and who isnt, is not a major topic of contention within the truth movement, in particular amongst the leaders of the movement?

TAM:)

TAM:)

7:30 PM  
Blogger Jujigatami said...

Jason,

So with all of the research you've done, what do you think happened on 9/11?

Which side do you fall on to (no pun intended)?

Do you believe that planes hit the WTC? What about the pentagon?

If you do, what do you think of the many, many truthers that truly believe that no planes hit anything that day?

Is it just that one side has done the same research as you and has come up with a totally different conclusion?

12:40 PM  
Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Jason, you've got understand it's a puff peice--it's meant to wind you up, so don't let it. ;-)

Get organized, instead!

5:04 PM  
Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

well Jenny, more accurately it is a Commentary, plus or minus the puff based on opinion.

and no, I am not cointelpro or disinfo...lol

TAM:)

6:45 PM  
Blogger Col. Jenny Sparks said...

Getting organized here as well!

Hurry, while there's still enough boy tarts to go around!

6:55 PM  
Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

boy tarts?

TAM:)

11:37 AM  
Blogger Jason said...

What do I think happened? I'm not entirely sure, and I'm not going to speculate and consequently provide you with ammunition for your straw man argument.

What I am sure about is what didn't happen. The OT is physically impossible, regardless of whether or not I can provide you with a full alternate explanation.

If a man is the one and only suspect in a murder investigation, and DNA evidence proves him to be innocent, do they need to come up with another suspect before fully clearing his name? No, because that would be ridiculous.

3:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home