Disinfo Blotter: The Guardian podcast "Why are conspiracy theories so attractive?"

[Guest Joe Bundy]

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Joe Bundy

[Guest Joe Bundy]

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Joe Bundy

[Stephen Roy]

I don't think there is a deliberate effort at censorship by peer-review, government or otherwise. Just my opinion.

To bow to any corrupt system is to legitimize it and stunt your own thinking ability, especially when corruption in peer review is recurrent and proof of that is publicly available. When is this elitist charade going to be called out?

I won't be lead to ignore the human biases embedded in the peer review system that is deliberately used as a tool by dividers and conquerors of society from an intentionally academic vantage point to uphold authoritarianism and crush dissension with a pen. Not only has the internet made it easier for anyone to publish a non-peer-reviewed book, it has also made it easier for "the establishment's" peer review participants to exert their bias with no immediate repercussions for doing so (I only link proven examples, but there are thousands more proven examples if you seek them out).

Your constructs are very hard to follow. Do you really believe that all writings are of equal validity?

[Thomas Graves]

I don't think there is a deliberate effort at censorship by peer-review, government or otherwise. Just my opinion.

To bow to any corrupt system is to legitimize it and stunt your own thinking ability, especially when corruption in peer review is recurrent and proof of that is publicly available. When is this elitist charade going to be called out?

I won't be lead to ignore the human biases embedded in the peer review system that is deliberately used as a tool by dividers and conquerors of society from an intentionally academic vantage point to uphold authoritarianism and crush dissension with a pen. Not only has the internet made it easier for anyone to publish a non-peer-reviewed book, it has also made it easier for "the establishment's" peer review participants to exert their bias with no immediate repercussions for doing so (I only link proven examples, but there are thousands more proven examples if you seek them out).

Your constructs are very hard to follow. Do you really believe that all writings are of equal validity?

No! They've all been altered by the bad guys!

LOL

--Tommy

[Guest Joe Bundy]

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Joe Bundy

[Stephen Roy]

I don't think there is a deliberate effort at censorship by peer-review, government or otherwise. Just my opinion.

To bow to any corrupt system is to legitimize it and stunt your own thinking ability, especially when corruption in peer review is recurrent and proof of that is publicly available. When is this elitist charade going to be called out?

I won't be lead to ignore the human biases embedded in the peer review system that is deliberately used as a tool by dividers and conquerors of society from an intentionally academic vantage point to uphold authoritarianism and crush dissension with a pen. Not only has the internet made it easier for anyone to publish a non-peer-reviewed book, it has also made it easier for "the establishment's" peer review participants to exert their bias with no immediate repercussions for doing so (I only link proven examples, but there are thousands more proven examples if you seek them out).

Your constructs are very hard to follow. Do you really believe that all writings are of equal validity?

Of course not. That'd be as naïve as thinking that corporate state-controlled peer review is the answer to validation.

When you qualify it as "corporate state-controlled," one might regard it as naive, but I disagree with your world view that it is a deliberate state-controlled thing. It is a much less nefarious tool which publishers used to use for reasons most rational people would understand.

[Thomas Graves]

I don't think there is a deliberate effort at censorship by peer-review, government or otherwise. Just my opinion.

To bow to any corrupt system is to legitimize it and stunt your own thinking ability, especially when corruption in peer review is recurrent and proof of that is publicly available. When is this elitist charade going to be called out?

I won't be lead to ignore the human biases embedded in the peer review system that is deliberately used as a tool by dividers and conquerors of society from an intentionally academic vantage point to uphold authoritarianism and crush dissension with a pen. Not only has the internet made it easier for anyone to publish a non-peer-reviewed book, it has also made it easier for "the establishment's" peer review participants to exert their bias with no immediate repercussions for doing so (I only link proven examples, but there are thousands more proven examples if you seek them out).

Your constructs are very hard to follow. Do you really believe that all writings are of equal validity?

Of course not. That'd be as naïve as thinking that corporate state-controlled peer review is the answer to validation.

When you qualify it as "corporate state-controlled," one might regard it as naive, but I disagree with your world view that it is a deliberate state-controlled thing. It is a much less nefarious tool which publishers used to use for reasons most rational people would understand.

Stephen,

By "rational" hope and assume you mean "non-paranoiac"?

--Tommy

Edited November 17, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

I think the meaning is very clear is it not?

I mean anyone should know that from the JFK field right?

What rational publishing house would fund and then market Reclaiming History?

In pure financial terms, how does that make any sense at all?

How does spending the money to get Posner on every major show there is, how does that make sense?

It only makes sense if you know who Bob Loomis is.

[Thomas Graves]

I think the meaning is very clear is it not?

I mean anyone should know that from the JFK field right?

What rational publishing house would fund and then market Reclaiming History?

In pure financial terms, how does that make any sense at all?

How does spending the money to get Posner on every major show there is, how does that make sense?

It only makes sense if you know who Bob Loomis is.

Jimbo,

I can visualize you waving your arms in the air even when you type.

LOL

--Tommy

[John Dolva]

The Intercept :

"The Washington Post put it simply: “almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes.” Even Tony Blair — Tony Blair — admits that there’d be no ISIS without the invasion of Iraq: “‘I think there are elements of truth in that,’ he said when asked whether the Iraq invasion had been the ‘principal cause’ of the rise of ISIS.” As The New Yorker’s John Cassidy put it in August:

By destroying the Iraqi state and setting off reverberations across the region that, ultimately, led to a civil war in Syria, the 2003 invasion created the conditions in which a movement like ISIS could thrive. And, by turning public opinion in the United States and other Western countries against anything that even suggests a prolonged military involvement in the Middle East, the war effectively precluded the possibility of a large-scale multinational effort to smash the self-styled caliphate.

Then there’s the related question of how ISIS has become so well-armed and powerful. There are many causes, but a leading one is the role played by the U.S. and its “allies in the region” (i.e., Gulf tyrannies) in arming them, unwittingly or (in the case of its “allies in the region”) otherwise, by dumping weapons* and money into the region with little regard to where they go (even U.S. officials openly acknowledge that their own allies have funded ISIS). But the U.S.’s own once-secret documents strongly suggest U.S. complicity as well, albeit inadvertent, in the rise of ISIS, as powerfully demonstrated by this extraordinary four-minute clip of Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan with Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency:

Given all this, is there any mystery why “U.S. officials” and the military-intelligence regime, let alone Iraq War-advocating hacks like Jim Woolsey and Dana Perino, are desperate to shift blame away from themselves for ISIS and terror attacks and onto Edward Snowden, journalism about surveillance, or encryption-providing tech companies? Wouldn’t you if you were them? Imagine simultaneously devoting all your efforts to depicting ISIS as the Greatest and Most Evil Threat Ever, while knowing the vital role you played in its genesis and growth.

The clear, overwhelming evidence — compiled above — demonstrates how much deceit their blame-shifting accusations require. But the more important point of inquiry is to ask why they are so eager to ensure that everyone but themselves receives scrutiny for what is happening. The answer to that question is equally clear, and disturbing in the extreme.

Research: Margot Williams"

*"as Aaron Cantú noticed, the stocks of the leading weapons manufacturers — what is usually referred to as the “defense industry” — have soared:"

**The US State Department has signed off on the deal to sell $1.29 billion worth of “smart” bombs to Saudi Arabia, according to the Pentagon. The 22,000 bombs are to be used in the Saudis’ military campaigns in Yemen and Syria. - RT

Edited November 17, 2015 by John Dolva

[Guest Joe Bundy]

.

Edited January 4, 2016 by Joe Bundy

[Thomas Graves]

The Intercept :

"The Washington Post put it simply: “almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes.” Even Tony Blair — Tony Blair — admits that there’d be no ISIS without the invasion of Iraq: “‘I think there are elements of truth in that,’ he said when asked whether the Iraq invasion had been the ‘principal cause’ of the rise of ISIS.” As The New Yorker’s John Cassidy put it in August:

By destroying the Iraqi state and setting off reverberations across the region that, ultimately, led to a civil war in Syria, the 2003 invasion created the conditions in which a movement like ISIS could thrive. And, by turning public opinion in the United States and other Western countries against anything that even suggests a prolonged military involvement in the Middle East, the war effectively precluded the possibility of a large-scale multinational effort to smash the self-styled caliphate.

Then there’s the related question of how ISIS has become so well-armed and powerful. There are many causes, but a leading one is the role played by the U.S. and its “allies in the region” (i.e., Gulf tyrannies) in arming them, unwittingly or (in the case of its “allies in the region”) otherwise, by dumping weapons* and money into the region with little regard to where they go (even U.S. officials openly acknowledge that their own allies have funded ISIS). But the U.S.’s own once-secret documents strongly suggest U.S. complicity as well, albeit inadvertent, in the rise of ISIS, as powerfully demonstrated by this extraordinary four-minute clip of Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan with Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency:

Given all this, is there any mystery why “U.S. officials” and the military-intelligence regime, let alone Iraq War-advocating hacks like Jim Woolsey and Dana Perino, are desperate to shift blame away from themselves for ISIS and terror attacks and onto Edward Snowden, journalism about surveillance, or encryption-providing tech companies? Wouldn’t you if you were them? Imagine simultaneously devoting all your efforts to depicting ISIS as the Greatest and Most Evil Threat Ever, while knowing the vital role you played in its genesis and growth.

The clear, overwhelming evidence — compiled above — demonstrates how much deceit their blame-shifting accusations require. But the more important point of inquiry is to ask why they are so eager to ensure that everyone but themselves receives scrutiny for what is happening. The answer to that question is equally clear, and disturbing in the extreme.

Research: Margot Williams"

*"as Aaron Cantú noticed, the stocks of the leading weapons manufacturers — what is usually referred to as the “defense industry” — have soared:"

**The US State Department has signed off on the deal to sell $1.29 billion worth of “smart” bombs to Saudi Arabia, according to the Pentagon. The 22,000 bombs are to be used in the Saudis’ military campaigns in Yemen and Syria. - RT

It all very Hegelian, isn't it, John?

--Tommy

[John Dolva]

Hmmm... I don't know. I suspect that the inclusion of the supernatural in Hegelian Dialectics (as I understand it to be) inevitably leads to misreads of events. (as opposed to the more rational Marxist Dialectics) Though I suppose given that Hegelian Dialectics is more acceptable in Capitals philosophising it's more likely that if anything the brass in the defence industry are Hegelins and therefore anything they do is tainted by such.

[Thomas Graves]

Hmmm... I don't know. I suspect that the inclusion of the supernatural in Hegelian Dialectics (as I understand it to be) inevitably leads to misreads of events. (as opposed to the more rational Marxist Dialectics) Though I suppose given that Hegelian Dialectics is more acceptable in Capitals philosophising it's more likely that if anything the brass in the defence industry are Hegelins and therefore anything they do is tainted by such.

Huh?

--Tommy

[Paul Brancato]

Joe - would you consider changing your type face, or darkness level, or whatever it is that is making it difficult to read your posts?