The priority for the readers of those newspapers was not the quality of research, or the writing, or the photography or any of that nonsense. Their top concern, first and foremost, was to read material which presented events in a way that was most pleasing to their pre-existing world view
Curiously, apolitical readers of the back pages of newspapers often genuinely were interested in non-partisan, well-written, well researched articles, accompanied by decent photography. Which is why you could sometimes screw up guessing a person's politics by their choice of newspaper, if they'd only bought it for the sports coverage
The reason why I'm raising the subject of people prioritising their world-view ahead of their thirst for objectivity is that I've just finished reading Webster Tarpley's take on the recent massacre in Norway...
Norway Terror Attacks a False Flag: More Than One Shooter on Island; Oslo Police Drilled Bomb Blasts; Was It NATO’s Revenge for Norway’s Decision to Stop Bombing Libya?
Washington DC, July 24, 2011 – The tragic terror attacks in Norway display a number of the telltale signs of a false flag provocation...
As I was reading the piece I was overcome with the same sense of frustrated tedium that I've been feeling recently as I plough through most of the 'alternative' news and commentary on the web. In that respect, I'm not singling Tarpley out. His article on Behring Breivik simply typifies the laziness that I think is corrupting alternative analyses of current events
What's my problem with Tarpley's piece?
For starters this 'number of telltale signs of false flag terror' stuff is way too reminiscent of the cliched 'all the hallmarks of Al-Qaeda' nonsense that mainstream commentators trot out five seconds after anything bad happens in the world
And the parallels with mainstream presstitution don't end there. Tarpley and countless other 'Truthers' started banging out their analyses of the massacre whilst the bodies were still warm. The result was not informed commentary but mounds of speculative verbiage - where the absence of facts and carefully thought out conclusions was compensated for by a pile of 'what ifs' and 'maybes'
And whilst I'm on the subject of carefully thought out conclusions, the last time I looked the whole purpose of a 'false flag op' was to create the appearance that it was carried out by another entity. So how does framing up reactionary white supremacist lunatics 'punish' the Norwegian state for refusing to bomb Libya or, as others are writing, for its friendly relations with Palestine?
If this were a false-flag op to punish Norway wouldn't the idea be to implicate Libya, or Palestine, or Muslims in general? Why would Zionist or other establisment gangs stage an atrocity which discredits an ideology they've worked like bastards to cultivate and which they need to maintain now more than ever?
The Muzzers are soooooo going to catch it for this oneThere's no serious critical or original thought going on in Tarpley's piece; no more than in most of the other alternative commentary I've read. The writers are just simply filtering through the material as it becomes available and cherry-picking that which fits their pre-established narratives. The end result is a certainty of conclusion that is a 'characteristic hallmark' of the most blinkered, the most confirmation-bias afflicted and the most thoughtless
.
23 comments:
We need a new Alt News site:
What Really Really Happened, or The Actual Truth Seeker. LOL.
Trouble is, there's no certain guide to the truth about the real world and when people turn to violence the truth is often concealed by by a bodyguard of lies. So speculation, inference from circumstantial evidence -- the hallmarks of this or that, etc. -- is about all that anyone has to go on.
But it is true the exercise can be done well or badly or with intent to deceive, which makes me wonder what Tarpley's about, since from time to time, if not all the time, he engages in what is clearly the willful propagation of total bollocks.
And you are right about the polarization between MMS and Alt media. Readers of the MSM want reassurance that they live in the best possible of all possible worlds and readers of the Alt media tend to believe that they're being scammed and want to know who's responsible. The two branches inevitably tend to cater to their particular audiences.
I'm covering old ground here but...
Personally speaking my antipathy towads the Queen does not come from a Tarpleyesque belief that she controls the world from behind the scenes but from the fact that her role is the cornerstone of a system of aristocracy and inherited privilege
And I've dealt with enough of the higher classes to appreciate that their privilege is in not any way warranted or deserved
They're not more beautiful, more clever, more intelligent, honourable or hard-working. They just had the good fortune to drop out of a particular womb
Scrap that network of parasites and a dialogue about how best to run a state, if a state it must be, might be possible
And back to Tarpley, Jones and all the others out there
What they are doing is making a case in support of their own point of view and passing it off as objective analysis. And, like a paid lawyer arguing a case, they have no interest whatsover in drawing attention to any evidence that their argument is flawed
Behaviour wise it is no different to how mainstream media operate
You wouldn't need, for example, to postulate that Jones is a covert Zionist operative to explain why he goes so easy on Israel and The Lobby and prefers to take pot shots at the Redcoats or the Pope. A good portion of his target demographic are Christian fundamentalists with Biblical Zionist leanings. Piss them off and you lose market share and don't sell so many gold coins and water filters
Bias, not 'truth', is what the majority of people want. Otherwise somebody would be making a living serving it up
Hmmmm, somebody's been busy underneath this post
The choices so far appear to be
Israeli mind-controlled patsy?
NATo mind-controlled patsy?
Lunatic?
'Genuine crusader'?
Not sure about the 'Genuine Crusader' though - if the shooter was that concerned about Muslim demographic take-over you would have thought he wouldn't have helped hurry the process up
Crusaders were supposed to hack up the unbelievers not their own women and children, weren't they?
"if the shooter was that concerned about Muslim demographic take-over you would have thought he wouldn't have helped hurry the process up"
The assumption has to be that he was attacking enemies within the gate. That is why one might conclude that Breivik is attempting to precipitate a civil insurrection against the ruling elite and their hangers on.
Re: The monarch,
It is certainly seems odd to the modern mind that someone should acquire a job by inheritance. But if it works, why worry about it.
I question, though, whether the monarch is "the cornerstone of a system of aristocracy and inherited privilege".
It was the aristocracy and smaller landowners who downed the Stewarts, and ensconced themselves in power in Parliament. Through powers they granted themselves in Parliament, the landowning classes enclosed the common land, thereby making it worthwhile to invest in agricultural improvement, which resulted in the (second) agricultural revolution.
The rural labour thus made redundant was then available to work the factories that the newly enriched landowners were investing in.
So in fact you could say that the monarchy, by acting as a (slight) check on the power of Parliament, serves the interest of the common people more than that of the aristocracy.
In fact, that was the implication of Malcolm Muggeridge's article that got him banned by the BBC, he said among other things, that the aristocracy looked down on the Queen as dowdy and ordinary, whereas ordinary housewives adored her. I think there is some significance in this.
"Hmmmm, somebody's been busy underneath this post"
I am puzzled that Craig Murray, whose intellect I admire, has so many empty-headed and vicious followers. Are these the characteristics of liberals in general? Perhaps so. The liberal left has been in the ascendant for a long time, with the result, it seems, that many have become complacent, vain and bigotted.
"Crusaders were supposed to hack up the unbelievers not their own women and children, weren't they?"
Depends on who was handy at the time.
The assumption has to be that he was attacking enemies within the gate. That is why one might conclude that Breivik is attempting to precipitate a civil insurrection against the ruling elite and their hangers on
Ah, the Charlie Manson option
And one based on many flawed assumptions, not least that the masses, whilst discontent, like the look of the alternative being offered
That, and the mass murder of defenceless people thing
Not an especially bright or clear-thinking 'Genuince Crusader' then
I note that David Duke and Co. are rethinking their association with certain Zionist-funded European White Nationalist loonbobs...
Norway Shooter, Anders Behring Breivik, Pro-Zionist Child Killer
and not making a particularly convincing job of it
The more I track this stuff the more confusing it gets
As somebody with an Italian Catholic background I'm mindful of the fact that in the past the David Duke's of this world didn't care much for wops, micks, latinos and blacks long before they even knew what a Muslim was
Now they've recently discovered that we're actually all on the same team and need to unite to defend our European Christian heritage
Once that's been secured they can get back to hating wops, micks, latinos and blacks again
Fuck 'em
"Not an especially bright or clear-thinking 'Genuince Crusader' "
I don't brightness or clear-thinking came into crusading.
The same with civil wars: they tend to become an orgy of factional mass murder.
whether the original crusaders actually chopped up Christian women and children, I'm not sure, but as suggested, it may have depended on who was handy.
"Living off the land and taking all possible loot as was the custom," they were, apparently, a terrible affliction to their Byzantine Christian allies.
"The liberal left has been in the ascendant for a long time, with the result, it seems, that many have become complacent, vain and bigotted"
I'm probably just as 'bigoted' but try to maintain dialogue with those I disagree with.
And I most certainly disagree with many of the opinions you've expressed here and elsewhere
To the best of my recollection I've only deleted one poster's comments from this blog - on the basis that he wasn't seeking dialogue, just being vile for vileness' sake
And in fairness to Murray he is actually publishing some actual research for scrutiny and discussion
"whether the original crusaders actually chopped up Christian women and children, I'm not sure, but as suggested, it may have depended on who was handy"
In my defence I did say 'supposed'
Yes, I'm afraid they did - the Sack of Constantinople being their masterstroke
Paving the way, as it did, for Muslim expansion in that part of the world
I think there may be a moral there for wannabee crusaders
Paxman & Philips finaly exposed as Al-Anders programmers..
I think John Robb's book "Brave New War" predicted the emergence of events somewhat like this. He has a brief post on the Templar thing here : http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2011/07/journal-knights-templar.html
Exaggerations aside the timing and target of this thing stinks and he looks like an Oswald type patsy to me with the same old Columbine style more shooters than there are supposed to be problem.
How did the coppers who finally turned up to stop him know his name already!?
The cui bono list is again very small and very familiar.
"he looks like an Oswald type patsy to me"
Do you think he'll live to see his trial?
It's worth remembering when drawing the Oswald-patsy parallels that it was Oswald who described himself as a patsy
By all accounts this one has confessed
and was caught alive
and is associated with not the usual suspects
In fact, there's a trail of breadcrumbs leading to not the usual suspects so thick that even the corporate media is nibbling on it
This is not the 'usual' false flag op or the 'usual' serotonin inhibitor induced spree killing
I'm expecting unusual developments
On the subject of spree killings, I reckon there are more parallels with this forgotten rampage than LHO
Still, I'm well impressed that so many US-based conspiranoid bloggers have managed to crack the case and come up with answers after only a few days Googling
@Wolfie
Two questions come to mind when trying to figure out the motives for the atrocity in Norway
1. Did matey sincerely believe that he was 'genuine crusader' carrying out an act which would be part of the start of a new crusade?
2. Did he have any help - be it active or passive (let it happen on purpose)?
The answer to the second question is looking like probably yes
The answer to the first is possibly yes
I'm still having trouble grappling with the claims being made by many conspiranauts who assert that the whole thing was a Zionist planned false flag op
...which implicates Zionists
I've never understood john robb, can someone explain him to me?
Robb's peddling the idea that global terrorism is proliferating in an open source kind of way, all sorts of disaffected groups are learning to make bombs whith chapati flour and chewing gum via the internet and we're all potential terrorists now
Robb makes me question the commonplace thet 'someones got to do it'.
Tribes? I thought that went out with happy house.
Post a Comment