/** Tools */

13 August 2005

Just when you thought it was safe...

Everything you think you know is a lie. So is all the evidence that supports what you think you know. So is all the evidence that counters what you think you know.

Confused? Good! A position of inherent confusion about everything is the only sensible place from which to start asking questions.

The Antagonist has been hanging fire on posting anything about this story for a while but, seeing as breakfornews.com has been offline for a good few hours today, now is the time publish and be damned.

BreakForNews and WagNews recently ran a story, The CIA's Internet Fakes, leveling accusations at a really long list of 'alternative' 'news' 'sources' for being the result of the same government conspiracies of control and misinformation that lead the conventional media to be full of nonsense also.

Breakfornews.com's Fintan Dunne explains the results of his investigation into the sources of information that contradict, or give lie to, whatever the dominant media paradigm might be. E.g. the sources of the sort of information that isn't in full support of government and corporate agendas and that might cause you to question stories and events as reported through the mainstream news channels. These sources of information, he claims are, at least in part, as redundant as the official stories of events because the information sources are the same as the official sources, only covert, and presented with an 'alternative' and truth-seeking spin.

The concept is a very interesting one and one that needed attention drawn to it publicly before anyone becomes a little too reliant on any single source of information - mainstream, alternative, or otherwise.

The Antagonist has no idea of the specifics of the research, explained further at WagNews, but the tactics which underlie the theory of floating contrary mis-information balloons and seeing how that information spreads, and to whom, is perfectly and totally sound. When these mis-information balloons are floated via 'alternative' Internet media sources, say in relation to NY 9/11 or London 7/7, their purpose is solely to divert from the actual truth while seemingly questioning the official version of events and purporting to offer some sort of greater truth than that which was previously available.

Tracking how these bits of mis-information then spread across the Internet is a fairly trivial task, especially if you understand anything about the nature of international gateways and innocuous-looking sniffer boxes strategically located across the world's Internet infrastructure. This information tracking and profiling process can then be used to flag up the ever increasing number of people who aren't buying the official stories while simultaneously serving the original purpose of leading the questioners down paths that avoid the truth.

To quote Fintan Dunne:

Here's a quote from a recent article on the UK Guardian:

"The Chinese government, employs an estimated 30,000 internet police, as part of a long-standing policy to control the web so that it can be used by businesses but not by political opponents."

Think the ideology and practice of the USA would be any different? Of course not. Just well cloaked under a veneer of free expression.

The logic behind the misinformation and profiling techniques is flawless.

With BreakForNews' public breaking of the story that there exists evidence to support the deployment of this misinformation technique via alternative news sources to further mislead an already misled public, the time for everyone to believe nothing and question everything has finally arrived.


Anonymous said...

In answer to your question, "Confused?", No.

I see a darkness pregnant with illimitable possibilities.

I realised some time ago that my ability to discern truth is not only dependent on my having the right tools but in being able to identify the right tools and use them correctly.

What i found an intellctual turn-on was the fact that as an imperfect human being, i would be logically disabled from doing all of the above with any degree of certainty or accuracy.

The journey to discover how this may be done promises to be most interesting.

Great site!

The Antagonist said...

Thanks for stopping by, Inquisitor.

Reassuring indeed that the first response to the question, "Confused?" was a resounding, "No!", and that it came complete with such an eloquent exposition.