Hello fellow truthers

Please take a look at this post which I put on my blog recently. My intention is not to advocate for my blog but, rather this post is relevant to our discussion.

Enjoy, may it give us a good thread.

On Disinformation from Symposium Intelligencia darrell simon Post#7


The term "disinformation" has become part of the vocabulary of many truthers and the sites they frequent. As with this term, words are often used with little understanding about all the connotations, denotations and visceral effects these words trigger. Words take on emotional and psychological energy which is triggered by the word.... often eventually this trigger is the primary use for the word and not its stated meaning. Any meaningful linguistic anslysis has to consider this power and the control it gives the users. Following the development of a word and what it tells us about the community in which it is used is an indispensible source of knowledge and understanding. In fact, an academically trained scholar who understands languages can use linguistic clues to find out the history, evolution and end of many cultural concepts that would otherwise be overlooked.

Martin Bernal totally rewrote Egyptian history based on linguistic arguments and his ideas were often confirmed by the change of Egyptian hieroglyph into Hieratic and eventual Demotic script...the last being a Greek system used by the Copts....all of this BTW being confirmed by the Rosetta Stone which was a translation of these linguistic systems into each other effectively giving people a key to decode Hieroglyphs. The evolution of a word can tell us so much, especially when we know what we are looking for.

The term "disinformation" has come to be applied to people who cause a disruption. The implication being that as an agent of disinformation a higher nefarious purpose is served by the disruptor. The truther sites live in perpetual fear that various agents will terrorize their boards
through confusion, strife, trolling, etc.....resulting in a shell of a site remaining... destroyed by chaos brought about deliberately to stop the truth from getting to the good people served by the site. To truly understand why this is a fear we must understand psychologically and archetypically, the basis for the particular feeling. In other words, knowing that people are scared of the dark we understand that the idea of being in a dark place can inspire fear. So for example, when Justice Brandeis uses the power of the sun and light to describe truth finding ("sunlight is the best disinfectant") or, when Plato uses the darkness of a cave as an analogy for ignorance in "The Republic" we know where the power of this language usage generates its strength.

This strength comes from the imagery of the archetype "darkness" expressed in language, and In both cases, as the subsequent absence of light. In these examples, where we establish that fear of darkness is part of our being, we also express being motivated to bring an end to the darkness, hence the concept of light is introduced.... because where there is light darkness cannot exist, it can only coexist. Light becomes a way to destroy the darkness in our mind's eye. Lets look at how this scenerio plays out:


The trigger becomes "the darkness" which brings up associations with primordial fears in our DNA from when we were ignorant and unable to act upon a dark place, where anything could grab us, take us, eat us, etc. Naturally when the light is mentioned it becomes that which lets us replace this fear with a love of what the light harbors..... our subconscious can react to something basic like an opposite cancelling out another idea (light /darkness love/hate). This in turn allows our intellect to consider the knowledge bequeathed through the light, the food it cooks as fire, the growth it causes living things as the sun, the use of our environment subsequently facilitated.....All these associations are triggered through the powerful use of language which initially acts on our subconscious level.


This analysis may seem overly technical but it is very important to grasp how our mind works (as will be demonstrated shortly). If I tried to inspire fear by using a room full of vestal virgins, it would not work. There is no consensus, no general feeling that is universal and visceral suggesting "fear" from the image of a room full of giggling girls. If I tried to use a complex verbal construction like an explanation of something, this is too complicated and would be filtered by our discriminating, intellectual conscious mind. A linguistic unit, whether it be a word, a character of Kanji, a Glyph, etc must symbolize when written, uttered, or imagined, something that will cause a sympathetic response. For example, showing you a flower should make you imagine the smell, describing darkness should make you imagine an uncomfortable environment in the absence of something. Once I get this reaction subconsciously I can actually then compel you by providing the missing thing that is sought. So when Louis Brandeis tells us "sunlight is the best disinfectant" psychologically our brain can imagine an unwholesome situation where that which is immoral can hide in the absence of this sunlight.

This may seem like a simple strategy until you consider linguistically what can be facilitated by the precise use of language to trigger the mind on this level and when you consider how many people can be affected by simple associations which compel a response. Put another way, the powers that be want people to believe that Hypnotic suggestion requires a willing participant, that violence watched for entertainment does not affect our behavoir and a host of other Bullshit that would make the control mechanisms used by certain groups subject to scrutiny.

People are often hypnotised into believing that they thought things through and came up with a conclusion that is in fact a result of the natural sympathetic response triggered in an individual. For example, 911 happens people have lost loved ones.... at the most basic level of our psych we need a simple bad association, a sympathetic response trigger. Enter "Osama Bin Laden" a composite being composed of certain Middle Eastern dispositions, certain terrorist dispositions, The ability to hide like a ninja (how a 6 foot Arab on dialysis could do this will remain a mystery). Osama is made to be a perfect villian in every conceviable way.

After this Osaminisation is reinforced, people are then triggered with negation to negate this "Osama" with something that cancels out the bad with the good. Remember at this level of control words are working subconsciously...naturally the thinking seems very simple because on this level things have to be processed in simple symbolic strategies. Our government tells us: to get Osama we need you to give us some of your freedoms. The cancellation becomes "the fear of Osama" replaced with the trust in our government reinforced by the act of giving our power away to this government so they can get Osama. The govenment then alleges they got Osama reinforcing that giving our civil liberties away was succesful. As has been proven many times people love to give their power away to the good guys. Heath Ledger as the Joker was defeated by an act of this nature: Hollywood ever ready to reinforce giving our power away depicts a weak minded individual who knowing his limitations gives the bomb trigger to a prisoner who suprises everyone by acting responsably (hence the reinforcement of the idea of giving power=success).

Just using a verbal concept, "Osama Bin Laden", + negating the concept with simple linguistic constrictions like "the patriot act" people have been hijacked and.... think that they have come to the conclusion that trading off our constitutional rights was in their control. The proof? the evidence the government provided that they killed Bin Laden.... no body, alternative statements about what happened, the fate of the witnesses. I think people need to understand the power of linguistic persuasion and how it can be misjudged by people who believe that verbal reasoning only take place at the conscious level. People were in fact compelled from the beginning to accept the tyranny of the patriot act and other henious acts perpetrated by the elites. If any rational person thought about it they would know in a second that the government provided no proof what so ever of killing Osama.


And so it is when people seize upon a word, the word becomes a trigger and a control mechanism. We should next, in the interest of truth, understand the distinction between the rational use of language and triggers. Triggers involve the psyche and the psychology of control of which words are the most basic unit of this verbal control. Freud is discounted, maligned and Poo poo'ed for a reason...he was essentially right in his construction of the Psyche. When Chomsky showed that Skinner could not possibly account for language use/development with Operant conditioning, among the things he accomplished, was reaffirming the basis for Feud's theories! Briefly: Because modifying behavoir on different schedules of reward & punishment (conditioning) has always been so succesful at changing people's behavoir it was assumed that the psyche was not relevant to any practical study of behavoir modification. This idea was proved to be false by Chomsky and that in fact human beings had innate mechanisms of such breadth and complexity that they could not even be explained, merely understood to be.

Whether this innate light of knowledge was Freud's Psyche, or Chomsky's language learning, it was bigger than any animal instinct that a human being could claim was conditioned by evolution, bigger than the environment, even bigger than our behavoir being modified every second of every day as most behavorists believe it to be.




Part 11. Conflict = Good!




hold that thought if you will... as we proceed, consider it a trigger. We now know the power of words and using psychology we have deconstructed the process, now let us look at some of the specifics involved with this term "disinformation." First off, the environment in which the word came to be appropriated by the truthers.

When we search for the truth conflict should arise... if we are shaking enough trees, so to speak. And the term disinfo has become a way to suppress this conflict and associate it with fear. The term conjurs up verbal/archetypical associations of an informant who is "handled" i.e. who has an agenda, a handler and goes about systematically destroying something like a terrorist with a pathological cause.... the agent becomes a veritable Manchurian Candidate. The truther sites believe that any individual who causes conflict must be one of these deliberating mind controlled victims, acting at the whim of others who have a greater stake in spreading disinfo. Spreading disinfo is the other mechanism that bears scrutiny. How does one spread disinfo exactly? Semantics are relevant here in this analysis and one can spread bad information, they can spread good information, they can spread no information or they can lie. How does one spread dis-information?

It is a historical documented fact that infiltrators exist and act to control information and often to cause mayhem. Within the truther community There are disinfo agents that gently steer epistemology off onto a beaten path where it can be manhandled by the usual numnuts who claim dominion on the truther sites. The fear of disinfo, the role of the authorities in regulating free thinking on the net, and the ability to depend on the usual suspects to steer information into the usual epistemological channels to be manhandled, has created an interesting situation. First there are people trying to defeat this whole agenda, this whole process and do something different. Of course they are attacked for this. And wouldn't you know it? they are accused of self importance, deception, etc. Now get this: This is the same accusations, the same processes that the other sites are accused of....what does that tell you? Everybody gets steered into the same channels folks. And usually people loyal to one site attack another, but there is an antidote for this that could radically change the power of this disinfirmation campaign.

here is how the subconscious breaks down the word Disinformation as it is being appropriated in its present use: disinformation = fear fear= conflict. conflict replaced by unity for info=truth.

notice the opposites and similars here.... the subconscious message recognizes these attributes and before any rational process of discrimination this is what goes to most people. {disinfo, fear, conflict} { info, unity, truth}. Obviously this reasoning is suspect. Actually this reasoning if left unchallenged, or if supported, would mean that truth depends on a cohesive community with no conflict, and no fear. This is exactly what many members of this community believe as well. Just as the New World Order depends on this cohesive homogenius whole, disinformation is in fact a campaign that is driving people in the truther community to believe that conflict or any other inconvenient truths that cause conflict are not to be tolerated.

Strife and conflict do scare people. It is unpleasant, painful and ackward. Families are often destroyed by it, friendships laid to waste, wars fought....need I go on? OK I shall, looking at my beautiful wife and one of my sons...I well remember how peaceful it was when my son was born. We went to the hospital, said it was time, the doctor magically made the baby come out in a bed of roses looking like the gerber baby as my wife giggled.....Yeah thats what happened! We come into this world in Mayhem and conflict! should the mother deal, or take a medicine that may hurt the baby? Should the birth be induced? and what is that lump covered in blood and guts you just pulled from my wife's ...? So why are we so averse to strife and conflict?!

You see people on the truther sites begging as though one has a knife to their throats "Pleeeeasssse don't fight, pleeeeeaaaaaase can't we all just get along?" And on it goes. There are reasons for many adverse triggers in a human being. I don't like elevators, I don't like bars (because I was a bouncer).....in the first instance? In my DNA is an understanding that tight spaces might be too tight, they scare me.... In the second instance? experience, operant conditioning has demonstrated to me that bars are very dangerous places where I have seen people hurt, killed even, so my body retains a conditioned aversion to this environment....much as my old man could not go to Japanese restaurants for years after fighting in the South Pacific in the second world war...... But conflict and strife build empires! Knowledge is gained when people are told "destroy that guy's thesis and hypothesis...be a skeptic and get him!" its called the scientific method folks. So why the aversion?

Not only is there is no logical reason for an aversion to strife and conflict but people actually look for strife and conflict. As kids we turn til we are dizzy and puking, bringing the body into conflict with its environment....this process builds brain cells. Hatsumi Sensei a national treasure in Japan and a gifted martial arts teacher, tells us that the Kanji representing Koto Ryu as an art means symbolically. among other things, to depict our mind's fight/conflict with gravity, a conflict which produces the marvelous strong bones that give our bodies structure through this conflict. As adults we get jaded and look for rides that cause one to puke at the amusement park. We go to entertainment which features drama and conflict..... sports are conflict based....only one team can win the superbowl and the two teams are not helping each other along. As a matter of fact we may make the following statement: Human beings need conflict and drama to grow. So why has disinfo and the influx of truthers decided that conflict is a negative thing? Well, lets see what is really happening and pull this together.

One cannot really disinform so much as redirect into the same channels. One can acually have a disinterest, but lets distinguish how: I cannot say I have a distinterest in that stock, or bet because I have no money down....I would in fact have "no interest." However when my wife starts talking about the features of different faces? I assure you I am quite disinterested! what we have is a very specific process of agency that is called disinformation folks. It seems that by creating a climate that is hostile to growth, intimacy and what our intuition tells us we need to develop from cradle to grave, some agency has been created that makes sure any information with any real bite is percieved as a threat by the community that is supposed to be open to this type of information.

And there you have it. People may see trolls, people who are difficult, or people who strive on conflict as in some way different than truth....I do not. A community that is open to the truth has to accept a wide berth for its membership. What you in fact wind up with, with few exceptions, are groups of weak minded people who cannot tolerate conflict and who worship the people who run these sites. In this way the powers that be can pretty much guarantee that no real information will ever come to pass on these sites, unless there is a site willing to buck this trend. On that note I can tell you that when people decide to buck that trend they are threatened, their integrity is challenged, and members complain incessantly. I have my eyes on two sites that have tried to do this to varying degrees, more on this later but for now they face an uphill battle dealing with their own weak membership looking for a savour, then other sites which feel threatened by their unencumbered process, and by those agent provocators who are obviously not the trouble makers they should be appearing as, but are probably well behaved members chosen for having borderline sociopath personality disorders. These people could be the leaders of some of these sites or the quiet guys who seem to always emerge from the fray that magically starts when they are posting.


We saw what a hypocrite Alex Jones can be when he does not agree with a cause, many of the other leaders of these sites have had issues with members where they have not shown much integrity in my opinion. People like Kerry Cassidy, Bill Ryan and David Icke among others. How much integrity will you show? Are you going to trigger yourself? or let others have that power? I know for some these are hard questions to deal with, but make no mistake about it.... those who can't tolerate stress and strife are a danger to all.

If anyone wants the blog address, assuming it is ok with chico I will post it....chico?

Yes thanks....
And why would you have to ask Chic?

Well my thinking was that I am here because of the agenda for the site and not to promote my blog....so its just out of respect for that intention, that is my priority

The agenda of the site and you linking us to your blog seem one and the same.
Only time will tell how you self promote.
I say fire away....

No problems. We have freedom of speech here, so you can post links to other sites.

Ok thanks Chico:

http://symposiac.blogspot.com/

I am starting slow and gaining momentum gently anyone is welcome

ty for putting that up dsimon..... ty chico.

good to know the US constitution isnt dead here and we can exersize are 1st amendment rights on the board. as long as its not fighting words or false statement of fact like what' s going on at banning for dollars i can get behind it.sorry i cant figure out that url link thing its not working for ,me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact

http://symposiac.blogspot.com/


ty for putting that up dsimon..... ty chico.

good to know the US constitution isnt dead here and we can exersize are 1st amendment rights on the board. as long as its not fighting words or false statement of fact like what' s going on at banning for dollars i can get behind it.sorry i cant figure out that url link thing its not working for ,me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statements_of_fact[/quote]

Wassup the link seems to work, what I can and will do is post my entries on this thread so you and anyone else can see the material. I will start with the post before the one about disinformation: this was the post before. I would encourage you to try the link again.

[size=200] Please stop castigating Russ Limbaugh [/size]


I really hate Rush Limbaugh. Most people who hate the man have not listened to him for any length of time. I have endured Rush in a sick attempt to justify my hate. His show is almost 90% advertising far as I can tell and the other ten percent are sound bite attacks on people. I have yet to find substance, certainly not the substance that some claim when they compare Rush to Buckley, or Novack. I have endured Rush because I have wanted to figure out why people are into this guy. What I have gathered is that people love companionship when it comes to hate.... like a shamanic channel which sweeps up all the unsavory id related verbal impulses we like to hide.... Rush is that channel, and he can then use that hate for disinformation and do his handlers bidding. This bidding often involves selling things and discrediting people with disinformation.

Rush has used crude language to describe a woman and people, well intentioned and thoughtlessly, have went hook line and sinker into the degradation of our first amendment rights. The sheep never learn that people like Rush, ideological Nazis and other horrid shit stirrers are necessary for the strength of our commitment to free speech, lack of censorship and freedom of the press. What is particularly disturbing is how political correct speech threatens our sacred institutions and is given a pass because this speech is rooted in white liberal guilt and associated with what the white liberal media decide other people find intolerable. Back in the day when a few guys in the gym got a bit punchy and one guy called another a "fag", it was boys being boys, and then it was decided that "fag" was a slur for gays and that anyone uttering this word must be punished! We had hate speech and the political order of haters to tell us how insensative we were to use such words!!

Who decided that a word should become a way to control behavoir? Where these words sudden triggers? at the mere mention of the word "slut" did groups of young men want to grab women by the hair spitefully? Were crimes being committed by the wanton use of words like fag and nigger? Did a group, like homosexuals for example, find a link between the use of derogatory words and their own social progress? Most African Americans I grew up with in my East Harlem neighborhood, who hardly seemed ready to be declared collaterial damage in White America's verbal act of attonement, would laugh at the notion that an outside authority was necessary to correct the misuse of a word.... They were eager and ready to gladly punch the misuser of such a term in the kisser.... no white Liberal guilt needed.... that is if the Puerto Rican next to them was not shouting "white boy" (El Blanco) so loud that they could hear the misuse to administer a corrective. So who decided that we needed white Liberal guilt and intolerance to label and punish people for verbal transgressions? If not the alleged victims then maybe, as always, the censorship had another more sinister purpose? Like degrading our ability to tolerate others and like degrading our civil liberties by getting people to believe we need censorship to control words, people and actions.

Political correct ideology is a way to control what people do through what they say. It has little to do with any underlying behavoir that the alleged victim experiences. Through this ideology people can punish others for poor word choice and claim that the use of these words incites hate crimes..... Alas the proof of this has never been established beyond the refrain preferred by most 4 year olds....."you hurted my fewlings". Certainly a group of gay bashers may use the term "fag" but it does not mean that high school kids horsing around and saying the term will become gay bashers upon using using this word insensatively. When I tried to explain this to a gay teacher in San Francisco who wanted to suspend a kid for using the word among classmates in the gym, there was indeed a lot of hate involved....unfortunately it was coming from the teacher vis a vis the grand inquisitor and not the student. This misrable bastard wanted to punish this kid because he had heard this uttered as an ease dropper walking by, not directed at anyone gay, not uttered spitefully. Truly.....sticks and stones can break bones but names can never hurt one. So lets use Rush as our horse's ass to review why this little ditty above should be inked on the ass of those proponents who espouse political correct censorship to control others.

Rush was asked to apologize for calling a woman a slut and prostitute, which he eventually did. He was then told his apology was not sincere enough. Who exactly has the right to make that judgement? This type of coercion is the same used in witch hunts where a person can always be found to be lacking general empathy/sympathy by an accuser. Yet there is absolutely no way to determine the degree of this empathy and sympathy and it is none of anyone's business. Apologies, like the one asked of Rush are perfunctory gestures which should be issued formally with no regard for the substance of the actual plea. Otherwise we risk people assuming they have a right to coerce, censor and control the actions of others by becoming a judge of intangible attributes like sincerity.

Sponsers have left the show,(around 20 or so at last count), which is interesting indeed.... Like Rush Limbaugh was not this spiteful, vindictive, hate filled individual before? Again, the ideology is one of coercion. You can abuse women advocate politics which seek to punish individuals but don't use certain words! Rush Limbaugh has a documented addiction to pain medicine, there is rumors and inuendo suggesting sexual hypocracy from Rush (among other things) yet all of this pales by comparison.

To punish Rush's intolerance with censorship is hypocracy and a way to undermine our civil liberties. Don't participate in this witchhunt

Wassup the link seems to work, what I can and will do is post my entries on this thread so you and anyone else can see the material. I will start with the post before the one about disinformation: this was the post before. I would encourage you to try the link again[/quote]

sorry d ment when i post here the hyper linking url button just aint working like chico when he hyperlinks in his posts.i click on URL nothin happens for me.

ty for pasting your articles up.your a good writer and clear thinker.i think rush is a douche but you make real good points.