W. Niederhut Posted February 16, 2021 Share Posted February 16, 2021 (edited) Most people on this forum are probably familiar with RAND's 2016 paper about Russia's "Firehose of Falsehoods" propaganda techniques. Obviously, the same 'firehose of falsehoods" technique has been used by the CIA and the U.S. mainstream media (and in U.S. political campaigns-- e.g., Swift Boat Vets in 2004) for decades. Of interest, to me, is RAND's 2016 analysis of counter-propaganda techniques-- and the implications for JFKA and 9/11 Truth. The only limited success I have ever had in my efforts to discuss 9/11 Truth with skeptics is by helping people understand why alternatives to the official Bush-Cheney-Zelikow theory of 9/11 offer better explanations of the definitive data. According to RAND, pre-emptive (and repetitive) labeling of the disinformation may be of some use, in addition to focusing on the need for alternate, valid explanatory theories. (See excerpt below.) An example of this approach would be Fred Littwin's latest Warren Commission propaganda being pre-emptively labelled and debunked by James DiEugenio. The problem, of course, is that our M$M has the firehose, and the Truthers only have squirt guns. The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It | RAND We are not optimistic about the effectiveness of traditional counterpropaganda efforts. Certainly, some effort must be made to point out falsehoods and inconsistencies, but the same psychological evidence that shows how falsehood and inconsistency gain traction also tells us that retractions and refutations are seldom effective. Especially after a significant amount of time has passed, people will have trouble recalling which information they have received is the disinformation and which is the truth. Put simply, our first suggestion is don't expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth. To the extent that efforts to directly counter or refute propaganda are necessary, there are some best practices available—also drawn from the field of psychology—that can and should be employed. Three factors have been shown to increase the (limited) effectiveness of retractions and refutations: (1) warnings at the time of initial exposure to misinformation, (2) repetition of the retraction or refutation, and (3) corrections that provide an alternative story to help fill the resulting gap in understanding when false “facts” are removed.34 Edited February 17, 2021 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Most people are this forum are probably familiar with RAND's 2016 paper about Russia's "Firehose of Falsehoods" propaganda techniques. Obviously, the same 'firehose of falsehoods" technique has been used by the CIA and the U.S. mainstream media (and in U.S. political campaigns-- e.g., Swift Boat Vets in 2004) for decades. Of interest, to me, is RAND's 2016 analysis of counter-propaganda techniques-- and the implications for JFKA and 9/11 Truth. The only limited success I have ever had in my efforts to discuss 9/11 Truth with skeptics is by helping people understand why alternatives to the official Bush-Cheney-Zelikow theory of 9/11 offer better explanations of the definitive data. According to RAND, pre-emptive (and repetitive) labeling of the disinformation may be of some use, in addition to focusing on the need for alternate, valid explanatory theories. (See excerpt below.) An example of this approach would be Fred Littwin's latest Warren Commission propaganda being pre-emptively labelled and debunked by James DiEugenio. The problem, of course, is that our M$M has the firehose, and the Truthers only have squirt guns. The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It The Russian "Firehose of Falsehood" Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It | RAND We are not optimistic about the effectiveness of traditional counterpropaganda efforts. Certainly, some effort must be made to point out falsehoods and inconsistencies, but the same psychological evidence that shows how falsehood and inconsistency gain traction also tells us that retractions and refutations are seldom effective. Especially after a significant amount of time has passed, people will have trouble recalling which information they have received is the disinformation and which is the truth. Put simply, our first suggestion is don't expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth. To the extent that efforts to directly counter or refute propaganda are necessary, there are some best practices available—also drawn from the field of psychology—that can and should be employed. Three factors have been shown to increase the (limited) effectiveness of retractions and refutations: (1) warnings at the time of initial exposure to misinformation, (2) repetition of the retraction or refutation, and (3) corrections that provide an alternative story to help fill the resulting gap in understanding when false “facts” are removed.34 I can't seem to "get into" the 9/11 alternative versions of history. And I like alternative versions, given the establishment media. I completely agree the single, terrorist event of 9/11 as was used as a PR springboard into two fantastically expensive yet counterproductive wars, copious carnage, and like the war in SE Asia, has negative ramifications that continue to the present (mostly for the people living in the Mideast or SE Asia). Let alone, more domestic repression and police-statism. I ask you to ponder this, especially in the context of this forum, and the JFKA: James DiEugenio, dreadnought researcher, has broadly posited that JFK was assassinated largely due to his foreign policy positions. Certainly, a defensible view. Trump is no JFK, but what about Trump's foreign policy? The moment Trump applied tariffs on China, and suggested removing troops back to the US from various global outposts, the establishment media, and the globalist-national-security establishment, turned on Trump like rabid hyenas. This is the aspect of the Trump presidency that most resonates with the JFK Presidency. I am not defending Trump on his domestic policies, any more than LBJ's admirable record on civil rights then clears LBJ from responsibility for the holocaust he helped create in SE Asia. Trump is Trump, and LBJ was LBJ, and there is no dancing around it. But for this forum, the interesting story is what the establishment and establishment media did to Trump, and why. The globalists/multinationalists will not brook any tampering or threats to their control of the US foreign-policy military apparatus. A global guard service for multinationals. See JFK, see Trump. The Brian Sicknick story is a small example of the establishment media at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: Trump is no JFK, but what about Trump's foreign policy? Like pulling out of the Iran nuke accord, slapping crippling sanctions on Iran, and assassinating their #2 leader. Or selling advanced weaponry to the Saudis for their war against the Shia in Yemen. Quadrupled civilian deaths by air strikes in Somalia. Announced a pull out from Syria that never happened. Attempted to extort the newly elected leader of Ukraine with the threat of withheld military aid unless the Ukrainians ginned up dirt on Biden. Reversed Obama’s opening to Cuba. Separated thousands of children from their parents on the southern border. Pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord. The tariffs on China required a US Government bail-out of farmers. Edited February 17, 2021 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said: Like pulling out of the Iran nuke accord, slapping crippling sanctions on Iran, and assassinating their #2 leader. Or selling advanced weaponry to the Saudis for their war against the Shia in Yemen. Quadrupled civilian deaths by air strikes in Somalia. Announced a pull out from Syria that never happened. Attempted to extort the newly elected leader of Ukraine with the threat of withheld military aid unless the Ukrainians ginned up dirt on Biden. Reversed Obama’s opening to Cuba. Separated thousands of children from their parents on the southern border. Pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord. The tariffs on China required a US Government bail-out of farmers. You raise some prime shortcomings of the Trump Administration's foreign policy. In regards to the "Russiagate" scenario, that seems to have turned into vapors. It reminds me of deciphering stories of political corruption in Latin America---the good guys are? And how do you know? Did not Biden halt an investigation into Burisma (his son on the Burisma board), as condition of a $1 billion grant? The storyline on the Biden interference in Ukraine sure smells bad. But side that aside. The much, much larger point: The multinational powers do not care much about Ukraine, Iran, or Yemen, or Somalia, or even climate change. No business there. The multinationals/globalists went after Trump on his China tariffs, and his other actions threatening business arrangements there. That was the River Rubicon. Apple has huge factories (through Foxconn) in China, WalMart imports from China, BlackRock (world's largest fund manager) has trillion-dollar-plus investment exposure to China, GM has a Buick factory there, Disney operates two theme parks and wants to sell movies there, and well, it would be impolite to mention the NBA. Even Tesla is in China now (as they could not export to China due to import barriers). The other spooky aspect is how much more powerful the multinationalists-globalists are today than in the era James DiEugenio so skillfully chronicles, the 1950s-60s. The international companies back then (1950-60s) were big and had influence, such as Freeport Sulphur, or the banana-fruit empires, and, of course, the oil companies. But on the national scale they were not overwhelming. They often had to operate through stealth, as DiEugenio so superbly relates. Apple's market-cap today is $2.24 trillion. That is trillion with a "T." Google's is $1.4 trillion. And they often own or control media companies. Disney owns ABC, for example. Apple, Disney et al wanted Trump out not because he bombed Somalia, but because he threatened their relationship with the CCP and China production facilities. Perhaps you know the sad tale about Disney and the Uighers. The one story tells of a huge encyclopedia. The NBA's blackout policy on all matters China...well, what does that tell you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: I can't seem to "get into" the 9/11 alternative versions of history. And I like alternative versions, given the establishment media. I completely agree the single, terrorist event of 9/11 as was used as a PR springboard into two fantastically expensive yet counterproductive wars, copious carnage, and like the war in SE Asia, has negative ramifications that continue to the present (mostly for the people living in the Mideast or SE Asia). Let alone, more domestic repression and police-statism. I ask you to ponder this, especially in the context of this forum, and the JFKA: James DiEugenio, dreadnought researcher, has broadly posited that JFK was assassinated largely due to his foreign policy positions. Certainly, a defensible view. Trump is no JFK, but what about Trump's foreign policy? The moment Trump applied tariffs on China, and suggested removing troops back to the US from various global outposts, the establishment media, and the globalist-national-security establishment, turned on Trump like rabid hyenas. This is the aspect of the Trump presidency that most resonates with the JFK Presidency. I am not defending Trump on his domestic policies, any more than LBJ's admirable record on civil rights then clears LBJ from responsibility for the holocaust he helped create in SE Asia. Trump is Trump, and LBJ was LBJ, and there is no dancing around it. But for this forum, the interesting story is what the establishment and establishment media did to Trump, and why. The globalists/multinationalists will not brook any tampering or threats to their control of the US foreign-policy military apparatus. A global guard service for multinationals. See JFK, see Trump. The Brian Sicknick story is a small example of the establishment media at work. You're absolutely right, it's the one thing which regardless of your background and voting history, you can look at that 4 years and say; "No new wars overseas for the USA, that's pretty good". We've seen war in perpetuity since JFK. Trump said said something along the lines of; those guys at the military industrial complex want us to stay in Syria for 100 years. The context was just after Trump had pulled troops out. The remark seemed very instinctive as opposed to something contrived. PS I have a bunch of links to 9/11 which are compelling, links and references provided. Like JFK there have been plenty of eye witnesses speaking out. If you're interested. drop me a DM. Edited February 17, 2021 by Chris Barnard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: You're absolutely right, it's the one thing which regardless of your background and voting history, you can look at that 4 years and say; "No new wars overseas for the USA, that's pretty good". Trump did his best to start a war with Iran. 22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: We've seen war in perpetuity since JFK. Trump said said something along the lines of; those guys at the military industrial complex want us to stay in Syria for 100 years. The context was just after Trump had pulled troops out. But the troops were not pulled out of Syria. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/11/us-official-admits-misleading-trump-on-us-troop-numbers-in-syria/ 22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: The remark seemed very instinctive as opposed to something contrived. Not familiar with Trump, are you? 22 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: PS I have a bunch of links to 9/11 which are compelling, links and references provided. Like JFK there have been plenty of eye witnesses speaking out. If you're interested. drop me a DM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Trump did his best to start a war with Iran. But the troops were not pulled out of Syria. https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/11/us-official-admits-misleading-trump-on-us-troop-numbers-in-syria/ Not familiar with Trump, are you? I get it, you can't accept there are strong counter arguments to almost every point you made to Benjamin Cole. Just try not to look at the world in shades of blue or red all he time, I am not American. 🙂 Just apply all of your logic to JFK's presidency and play devils advocate on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: I get it, you can't accept there are strong counter arguments to almost every point you made to Benjamin Cole. I haven’t seen *any* counter arguments, strong or otherwise. Benjamin didn’t challenge anything I wrote — he doubled down on China + The Big Mouse et al, which is fine with me. Quote Just try not to look at the world in shades of blue or red all he time, I am not American. 🙂 I don’t think you’re in a position to access how I view the world. Quote Just apply all of your logic to JFK's presidency and play devils advocate on that. Yes sir! The foreign policies that got JFK killed were the partition of Laos (spearheaded by Averell Harriman in ‘62) and the overthrow/murder of Diem and his brother Nhu in So. Vietnam (spearheaded by Harriman in ‘63). https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/laos-crisis In all likelihood it was Harriman who spearheaded the murder of JFK, in my book. Edited February 17, 2021 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said: You're absolutely right, it's the one thing which regardless of your background and voting history, you can look at that 4 years and say; "No new wars overseas for the USA, that's pretty good". We've seen war in perpetuity since JFK. Trump said said something along the lines of; those guys at the military industrial complex want us to stay in Syria for 100 years. The context was just after Trump had pulled troops out. The remark seemed very instinctive as opposed to something contrived. PS I have a bunch of links to 9/11 which are compelling, links and references provided. Like JFK there have been plenty of eye witnesses speaking out. If you're interested. drop me a DM. Chris--Thanks for your comments. I am deep into another "JFK Assassination" phase, a recurring vice since the 1960s. I don't think I can handle any more plots, machinations and malfeasance. Add on: I am inclined to accept conspiracies that have very few participants, and I have written an article that "explains" the JFKA with only two-three conspirators---but a few more witting, semi-witting or unwitting accessories after the fact. If you have an explanation that offers a small confederacy pulling off 9/11...I will take a look. I am open-minded. Good luck out there, friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 9 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: I don’t think you’re in a position to access how I view the world. Am I not? Well, you are disguising your view of the world remarkably well in your 6,965 posts. Someone profiling you would be utterly baffled, I am sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 (edited) I agree Cliff, these "strong counter arguments" just disintegrate into retreat. Has Chris defended one point? I've been wondering whether to comment on this. I'll start with W. You know I love your contributions. It's an interesting topic , but you lose focus with 2 paragraphs. The first one I get the impression you want to segue again into expounding about 911, and Benjamin didn't take the bait. The second one is mentioning Litwin. Di Eugenio's obsession with Litwin over the years is like Trump trying to undermine Obama. In the past he's talked about trailing Litwin to other websites. What other authors do that here? WhoTF is Fred Litwin anyway??? If Litwin's books are a commercial success, it's a travesty, and I can understand a professional jealousy. But so much of Litwin is so off the mark. Why are we discussing him at all, except for Jim's obsession? I cringed when I saw Jim starting another thread about him. Just about every other topic is more interesting. IMO W: An example of this approach would be Fred Littwin's latest Warren Commission propaganda being pre-emptively labelled and debunked by James DiEugenio. W. We've discussed 4 years of propaganda much more insidious, much more monumental than this. In fact isn't that what makes your piece timely? 4 years of Trump? How could a small time wimp like Litwin get a mention? ***** Benjamin's right in that the single most offensive policy to elites is Trump's trade policies with China. Still Trump was bungling, corrupt and inept with that. He came into the Presidency owing China Bank 211 million dollars. He actually tried to get Xi to investigate Biden too! Do you think that comes with no strings attached? So he was even prepared to cave at least partially in on that! And about the Mideast, talk about getting sucked into superficial symbolism. Maybe the defense establishment didn't like his rearrangement of deck chairs but they're all still there. It's basically if you like the Saudis and Netanyahu, you're happy and if you're Iranian or Palestinian, you're sad! **** Jimmy Carter was 4 years without a war. Cliff do you remember the first 4 years of Clinton? Edited February 17, 2021 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 21 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: Am I not? Well, you are disguising your view of the world remarkably well in your 6,965 posts. Someone profiling you would be utterly baffled, I am sure. You’ve read my 6,965 posts? I’m flattered. But it’s just a sidelight, I made my bones in the music biz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: Chris--Thanks for your comments. I am deep into another "JFK Assassination" phase, a recurring vice since the 1960s. I don't think I can handle any more plots, machinations and malfeasance. Add on: I am inclined to accept conspiracies that have very few participants, and I have written an article that "explains" the JFKA with only two-three conspirators---but a few more witting, semi-witting or unwitting accessories after the fact. If you have an explanation that offers a small confederacy pulling off 9/11...I will take a look. I am open-minded. Good luck out there, friend. That is fair enough. It would certainly divert focus. Our logic is to think; the more people involved, the more improbable a conspiracy is. I listened to a former CIA chap on Joe Rogan's podcast last year and he was asked about the JFK assassination and his response was "someone would have talked". That really summed up how most people look at an event like that, that nobody can keep a secret or that human guilt or conscience will rise up and mean a whistleblowing or truth telling occurs. In my country we have a strong sense of Judeo christian values, which we are taught to us directly from a very young age. So someone like John Perkins "Confessions of an economic hitman" spent a lot of his life as a frontman for big business / America, doing some pretty bad things all over the world and his conscience rose up and he wrote books about the things he was ashamed of. That's exactly how my mind would work, as I have conscience and compassion. But, many of assume conscience exists and by religious folk it's one of the proofs of he existence of god. In psychology it's very unclear whether conscience exists. So I don't assume that because I feel that way, that someone like Hilary Clinton or GHW Bush would feel the same in the same circumstances. In fact there is evidence that people, families or a class that benefits tremendously from wars happening, do not feel that same conscience I do. I believe people are products of their own environment, if my upbringing is one of love and compassion for humankind, it is different to another person who is brought up on values of green, selfishness and that it is every man for himself. The more I read, the more it seems clear that much of a political class don't care about the man on the street, despite well managed PR teams and fundraising for charities making them look saintly in the public domain. I am open to the concept that a whole class could be responsible for heinous acts and conspiracy, if it benefits them. I think the ones who feel uneasy would be educated enough to know the consequences of moving against their class (something we've probably read a lot about). I suspect JFK was very much viewed as a traitor to his class, especially as his father had benefitted from being in that network (speculative). I know lots of wealthy people and they think a lot differently to the rest. I really do want to believe the world is a better place than it is, the more I read, the more I think I am wrong to believe that. Unfortunately, I don't have a better explanation than "cui bono" for 9/11. So, the answer is in who profited, whether that be trading or from the wars that ensued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 18 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Jimmy Carter was 4 years without a war. Cliff do you remember the first 4 years of Clinton? I find the war Clinton got into in his second term interesting. Bombed the hell out of the Serbs in Kosovo, allied with NATO and the ethnic Albanian Kosovars. Who runs the heroin trade in Europe? Heroin Heroes https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/01/heroin-heroes/ Albania’s Deep-Rooted Drug Problem Touches All Of Europe https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_12311366 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: You’ve read my 6,965 posts? I’m flattered. But it’s just a sidelight, I made my bones in the music biz. No 🙂 I have a life and, prefer to add to my knowledge, not subtract from it, Cliff. I genuinely think you'd be better off playing in the YouTube comments, you'd get more biters there. On the music front, I am pleased for you, that's a great way to earn your keep. It's one of my passions too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now