Why Centralising Information is the Ruination of Critical Thinking – Part Two

all-is-well-1418895_1920
Mainstream philosophy encourages you not to question official narratives but to believe that all is well – even to the point of collapse

***Here is part two of my thoughts on the subject of centralising information. This follows on from part one posted on September 21st 2016***


Q: Given that the Kubler-Ross model is not full proof, what happens if people refuse to accept the premise of it and continue to decry alternative theories as baseless conspiracies?

A: That’s to be expected. Humanity has yet to come to a universal consensus on any subject. There has always been division. An important factor to consider when trying to encourage people to research topics more thoroughly is the issue of critical mass. You don’t need every citizen on board when seeking to expose truth out of entrenched obfuscation. But you do need enough like minded individuals to create a common unity of some sort. How many exactly is difficult to gauge. I’ve seen it written that 10% would be enough to form a critical mass. My feeling is it would take more. Resistance to tyranny needs to begin on a local level. If enough localities engage in resistance then eventually it turns into towns, then cities, and perhaps over the boarder to neighboring countries.

But if people remain instantly dismissive of alternative explanations, it is important to understand why. On numerous occasions I’ve come into contact with people who dismiss a theory without undertaking any research into its origins. It is a reflex action – an individual can be indoctrinated by mainstream media, peer pressure and generational beliefs, and when an alternative angle comes into play it is likely he or she will dismiss it as a conspiracy. Simply because they do not consider the idea plausible. But how can you come to that conclusion if you haven’t researched the theory?

I think there’s two sides to this worth expanding on. Firstly, an individual will treat anything that strays from the official narrative with hostility and reject the idea entirely. They may also ridicule the person putting forward the theory – a popular put down is that of a ‘tin foil hat wearing’ lunatic who is far removed from reality. You cannot stop people responding like this, but it is legitimate to question their stance if they have not taken the time to research. If they have researched and still think people like myself are crazy, then fine. The best thing to do then is to move away from that person and seek to gain common ground with others. You don’t need to fall out with them over it.

Secondly, there is the individual who instead of giving your theory a chance to settle in their mind seeks to debunk it as quickly as possible. This is where the power of search engines plays a critical part. The subject of Geoengineering is a good example. Elements of the media that do give some exposure to this subject only ever refer to it as ‘Chemtrails‘. Type that into any search engine and what you get back is a selection of web pages debunking the theory. But type ‘Geoengineering‘ or ‘Solar Radiation Management‘ or ‘Climate Engineering‘, and you are much more likely to find evidenced based information that supports the theory. It also gives confidence to those who are skeptical that you know what you are talking about.

Some just want instant confirmation that what they have been told isn’t true. I have to say, though, that it’s not just people of this mindset that prevent wider exposure of a conspiracy. It is also people who proclaim themselves as ‘truth seekers’ but parrot terms like ‘chemtrails‘ and ‘9/11 was an inside job‘ to support their arguments. Just consider for a moment how that sounds to someone who is genuinely unaware of the realities behind each issue. It comes across as conspiratorial. Factless. Baseless. The tragedy is that neither term is inaccurate. There are aerosol trails in the sky. September 11th was orchestrated through multiple intelligence agencies. So why when you are armed with knowledge like this would you seek to undermine that knowledge with words that provoke denial and, crucially, division?

Q: You mentioned how people seek to debunk theories that stray from the official story. Is this too part of centralising information?

A: It’s a key tenet of it. Now we’re getting onto the topic of ‘disinformation‘. When it’s not the mainstream media obfuscating the truth, it falls to other outlets to do it for them. There are several leading culprits responsible. Three come to mind – Snopes, Wikipedia and MetaBunk. If you hear about a conspiracy and you are looking for information that discredits it, these sites are an excellent resource. That’s not to say that everything they publish is false. But there are some clear examples, particularly in the case of Snopes, where lies have been presented as truth. They have published false information on the HPV vaccine for example, and of a whistle blower at the Centers for Disease Control. People all to easily slip into a mindset of believing that if Snopes says it’s a baseless conspiracy, then they need look no further into the matter. The same applies to Wikipedia and MetaBunk who routinely denounce the suggestion that aerosol particulates are being sprayed into the atmosphere.

Singular sources of information that exist to debunk a plethora of conspiracies should be treated with caution. I think sites like Snopes and Wikipedia amount to the easy answer. Real conspiracies that carry with them many different facets, exemplifying their complexity, cannot be dismissed as easily as these sites like to claim. In effect, what we’re looking it with these sites is the centralisation of disinformation.

Q: On a final note, what do you think are the psychological ramifications of learning about a conspiracy and coming to believe it is true? 

A: So much in today’s culture demands that you keep to the straight and narrow, and simply operate within the bounds of the system. If you come into contact with information about a conspiracy and feel the urge to investigate it, then that is the first step. If you begin to realise that the research you are doing challenges everything you had previously known to be true, you then need to decide if you are willing to carry on with it. The pressure not to is intense. Family, friends, and work colleagues who have not taken the time that you have to investigate will not be able to resonate with how you are feeling. They are still bound by the official narratives of the mainstream. And it’s possible that you will fall out with people along the way, and engage in strong arguments to support your research.

A major problem for people who are not willing to tolerate what they see as a wild conspiracy is the realisation that if they were to tolerate it, it would mean undertaking a complete re-evaluation of their life long beliefs. Some will find that too inconvenient, too much of a sacrifice. So they will continue living in denial to appease their family, social networks and colleagues.

But in all of this you should not forget about you, the individual. You cannot unlearn what you have now been made aware of. You can suppress it if you wish and try to forget it is not there. But it is there. And once that becomes apparent within you, there is a certain amount of duty to help someone else become aware of it too.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s