Friends, I often find that people's questions and comments create a space in which it becomes easy to explore certain ideas. The question creates a focus, and that focus somehow facilitates a coherent line of thinking. Stephanie's comments, below, provide the inspiration for some thoughts on the nature of propaganda, the question of how to evaluate sources, and a few other related items. ciao, rkm http://cyberjournal.org -------------------------------------------------------- From: "Stephanie McDowall" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Question - RE: on radio today: US Concentration Camps: The Preparation for Mass Incarceration Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 09:32:57 -0700 Hi Richard: Do you have any articles on these Concentration Camps or can you suggest a good website? Well over a year ago, I wrote to my Federal Member of Parliament, Jean Crowder, on this issue. I even followed up requesting a response etc. etc. Have never heard back. Hi Stephanie, I've seen various articles over the years, but didn't keep track of them. Google probably has lots, and perhaps someone out there might have a reference to share. --- Stephanie > Somehow, I had stumbled on something that caused me to do a search on Google. What I found was pretty horrifying and quite frankly, unbelievable to most people. The problem with the sites I located, it seemed to me they were run by right wing religious fundamentalists and the "survivalist movement" in the U.S. This causes the material to be viewed with great skepticism. I can understand this as even to me this seems to be just too outrageous to be true. rkm> The question of how to judge various sources of information is a deep one. Besides the investigative issues of "how to evaluate credibility", there are psychological issues around denial, self-image issues around "I'm not competent to judge", sociological issues about "agreement with peers", issues around illogical thinking, and propaganda issues around "false flag" stories. I know people who refuse to look at certain material on the basis that the source is sometimes unreliable - and then those same people watch the TV news and read the mainstream papers. These are people who agree that mainstream media isn't reliable, and they don't see the illogic in not using the same "don't look" criteria for mainstream media as they use for alternate media. To put the shoe on the other foot, they don't see the illogic in not using the same "give it a look" criteria for alternate media that they use for mainstream media. There are very few sources that are always reliable, and there is a great deal of useful information that comes from sources that are in many ways wacky. If we are seeking truth, then we ignore potential information sources at our peril. The jewels must be sought where they are, which may not always be in our usual haunts. Right wing sources, particularly on the Internet, are very interesting to study. That part of the net has a different feel to it, a different dynamics, than what we are used to on the left side of the spectrum. For one thing, there are several different propaganda lines being spewed out, telling people how to think...directly selling world views. You have recognizable camps, such as right-libertarians, survivalists, rabid anti-Zionists, etc., not to mention the fundamentalist categories. It's a much more fractionated world than we are used to. I'm sure that many of the writers and editors of these propaganda channels are sincere in what they do, spreading their version of truth, and are not influenced by any sinister forces. Nonetheless it seems clear to me that there are some basic lines being distributed from centralized sources, along with leaked information, photos, insider statements, etc., to support various claims and theories. Some of these sites do have some dynamite stuff, and it can often be verified from more conventional sources. And there is trash as well. At the macro level, it seems to me that we are living in a propaganda regime that has two distinct parts, one for liberals and one for the rest, one single-channeled and one multi-channeled. For liberals there is the mainstream media, what I have been calling Matrix reality. The media doesn't necessarily tell you what you want to hear, but it tries to justify what it says in terms of your own values. Conservatives are correct when they talk about the "liberal media". On the right, each of the propaganda streams begins from the same continental divide: they all begin from the premise that mainstream, liberal reality is delusionary in some way, and then they flow off in different directions, tailored for different personality types and different social groups. For fundamentalists, mainstream reality is downright evil, in that God and His Word do not get much air time. For others on the right, mainstream reality is seen as carrying a socialist agenda, aimed at selling out our sovereignty to the UN. From the continental divide, the various world views fall down many a precipice. We need to keep in mind that the grassroots right are not represented by this propaganda regime, rather they are the targets of it. Perhaps, and this is very speculative, the thing that most characterizes those on the right is a need to have a clear, concrete explanation for the 'big questions'. Perhaps there is an aversion to uncertainty, a need for a certain kind of security of belief. Perhaps there's a fear of chaos down there somewhere. By contrast, again perhaps, the left - apart from the doctrinaire socialist types - is characterized more by an aversion to certainty, and a need to constantly re-examine and question. Perhaps there's a fear down there somewhere of being trapped, a fear of committing, of being made a fool. If these flights of speculation are valid, then we can understand why the propaganda regime is set up the way it is. The mainstream gives us liberals lots to think about: we hear various viewpoints, and there are never any clear conclusions about anything. We live in a paradise of uncertainty. On the right, there is a menu of certainties - a church, so to speak, for every type of person who might be looking for certainty. There's a cultish element in these belief systems, where those who accept certain basic assumptions are considered 'family', and everyone else "just doesn't get it." From these kinds of observations, we can see why many of us steer clear of right-wing sources. And that provides an opportunity for a certain kind of propaganda maneuver. It becomes possible for the Establishment to discredit a viewpoint, or a line of investigation, by putting it in the mouth of right-wing sources. If the facts can't be covered up, this maneuver provides a convenient mechanism for damage control in the world of the Matrix. As a result, I've found, among right-wing sources, quite a few jewels of information, which if mentioned in the mainstream at all, would be readily dismissed due to association with 'known crazies'. In this vein, I've seen more concern expressed on the right about Constitutional issues, the all-powerful FEMA bureaucracy, the threat of mass internments - in short facing up to the real threat of fascism - than I've seen on the left. Along with the various propaganda channels there are also sincere people, with whom we may differ in some beliefs, who have put up some very informative websites. The search for truth requires exploration, practice in the science of discernment, and an openness to entertaining new perspectives. --- Stephanie > One of my greatest disappointments at age 62 is how so many of my friends do not wish to hear anything about what is really going on....concerning issues which should be of vital concern to them. rkm> I've come to the conclusion over the years (I'm also 62) that discussions at the level of big issues and beliefs are seldom productive, if there is fundamental disagreement to begin with. You've experienced this, as per above, and I believe it is understandable why this happens. When it comes to big issues we are dealing with the outer layer of an onion. Underneath a certain belief is a lifetime of unique experiences, slanted media, prejudices of social group, childhood conditioning, etc. When we ask someone to reconsider certain beliefs, we are asking more than we know. It is not just a matter of evidence and logic; it's a matter of commitment to assumptions, perhaps barely conscious, which someone considers vital to their well being, their sanity, their sense of security. They might say, "I can't believe that our leaders would do that to their own people!", and they would really mean it, they CAN'T believe that: it would destroy them, or at least they fear that it would. What is some 'dubious' piece of evidence in the face of such forces? Consider yourself. When you try to tell your neighbors 'the truth', are you open to the possibility that they will talk you out of it, convince you that the Iraq war is good? They couldn't, because you know you're right! That's really the big conundrum, how do we know we are the ones who are right? Neither certainty nor depth of feeling can be the test, as they can be found in equal measure everywhere on the spectrum of beliefs. Agreement with others is no better yardstick, as every bird can find a compatible flock somewhere, a place where the "sensible" birds gather. We need to accept as a fact of life that we, as a society, are divided by our beliefs. This may be a natural state of affairs in any pluralistic society, and in our case it is a state of affairs that is intentionally cultivated by a systematic propaganda regime. But we are so divided only as long as we focus on our beliefs. We will never all agree on God or Socialism or Iraq or any Big Beliefs, no matter how much we try. That is fact, but it is only an obstacle as long as we allow it to be. What we really want, deep down, when we approach someone from the "other" camp, I believe, is to make a connection, to find common ground. By habit, we assume this common ground can be found "if only" the person can see this or that fact, if they can "see the light" that we have seen. Why do we persist in habits that always fail? Even a mouse soon learns not to go down the fruitless part of a maze! Let us seek connection, common ground, but let us try some new approaches. Let us stop beating our heads against the wall. If you come from a consciousness of "wanting to connect", then trying to sell your beliefs becomes an obvious non-starter. "Wanting to connect" is a friendly social activity, as one of its aspects, and pushing beliefs is a bit anti-social and aggressive, when viewed in that context. A more fruitful approach might be to inquire as to the other person's concerns and beliefs. Not to evaluate, or to gather ammunition, but to understand that person. In debate we are always skating on the skin of the onion. If we allow a person to explain themselves, to tell their story, and if we listen, we can understand what's in the core of their onion, and we are likely to find there another caring human being, with whom we can connect at a meaningful level. From that place, common ground can become visible. best regards, rkm