In the UK, back in the days before the Internet, it was possible to make a fairly reliable estimation of an individual's political viewpoint based on the title of newspaper they had under their arm; The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Express, The Daily Sport and all the rest, each had a particular target demographic. The biases were unashamed and undenied
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 one
There'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
.
Normal service on this blog continues to be hampered by the fact that I've moved halfway around the world, am still looking for a home and a job and can only access the internet whilst peering at a poxy little netbook hooked up to a modem/ internet connection that would have been laughably inadequate ten years ago...
but
there's no way I'm going to pass by on the opportunity to link to this little gem which will delight George Monbiot fans worldwide (and cheers to Parabellum, yet again, for the heads up)...
How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds
Arctic ice levels above average? Perhaps the Telegraph's columnist should take just half a minute to check the facts
A more accurate title for Monbiot's article would be something along the lines of 'How to make yourself look like a Complete Dick in 26 seconds', or as George himself admitted in more round about terms...
Now, much as I hate myself for saying so, we all make mistakes and George did fess up pretty quickly
Mind you, the red, trident wielding, pixie standing on my right shoulder is whispering in my ear to remind me that George's article was presented as a personal attack on Christopher Booker, so it's actually perfectly fair game to point out that Monbiot is an utter, utter tosser
and a wrong tosser at that
but that's all by the by
The really disturbing thing, and this has been a constant theme of this blog, is the uncritical, faith-based, adulation poured on Monbiot by his genuinley adoring commentators underneath
There's also the usual tediously involved debate, along the lines of how many angels can you fit on a pin head, about completely irrelevant, inconclusive trivia which virtually all on-line 'discussions' about Man Made (?) Climate Change inevitably degrade into
The interesting, and disturbing, thing is, of course, is that the fact that even though Monbiot is actually demonstrably and self-admittedly wrong in this case, that news will make absolutely no difference to people who commented positively about his article before George admitted to his error
as Parabellum said when pointing me towards Monbiot's article...
"Why do people don't see that they *themselves* can fall prey to heuristics and biases? Why do many many people think that only *other* people make mistakes? On the other hand, I try to stay critical of my own judgement but this is not very healthy if overdone. Sometimes I envy people that are so sure of themselves that they can ignore all the mistakes they make..."
If there's one common denominator connecting themes and ideas discussed on this blog it's the mischievous thought that, actually, if you look closely, and objectively enough at most things that 'every rational personal knows to be True', be they 'shit just happens' based explanations of human events or sacred scientific theories which are venerated as religious dogma, they all pretty much turn out to be bollocks
Which is only fair enough
Every generation that's ever lived before Us based their lives on belief in an awful lot of bollocks which was subsequently proven to be bollocks
So why should We be any different?
Well, except for George Monbiot followers, they're obviously different, and a little bit special
.
The Muzzers are soooooo going to catch it for this one
