One Sucker's Saga, Part IV: Gold, Both White and Black

[peristaltor]

In Part III of this saga, I ended with a mention of Michael C. Ruppert and the CIA's connection to drugs. His story began December of 1975 when (as many stories begin) he met a woman:

"(I)t's not too often you meet a woman who is beautiful, intelligent, literate and witty siting in a bar with a bunch of police officers," Ruppert said. "She was

Comments

[ironphoenix]

It's a tough question, isn't it: what the heck can one even begin to do about this, beyond perhaps spreading the word?

And another question: does one dare try? These people will fuck your shit up if you get in their way, and will do it hard. They will go after your family, your career, you health, your reputation... there are more effective ways to deal with people than just killing them. I'm not sure I have the stomach to see my loved ones mauled by that machine, even if I were willing to sacrifice myself.

[peristaltor]

That is exactly the condundrum as I see it, too.

Then again, spreading the word is not as ineffectual as it may seem. That Overton Window has some real power. The key, I guess, is to spread it calmly, wisely, with people who are receptive, and to make sure not to make claims too grandiose for others to accept. Once you're labeled a "conspiracy" nut, your credibility ends, no matter how factual your claims.

[ironphoenix]

Heh... I have a friend who makes a practice of pushing the Overton Window on some fronts, although not this one (yet?).

Credible people supporting ideas that seem radical trade some of their credibility to the idea, so moderation and slow progress is key: trade away too much credibility and you become, as you say, labeled as a Tinfoil Hat.

[peristaltor]

Credible people supporting ideas that seem radical trade some of their credibility to the idea. . . .Precisely. A friend studying psychology back in college called this "excentricity credit." The more "solid" one acted in everyday life, ie. the more one behaved cordially and generously with others on a regular basis, the more slack others would cut for one on those times one acted out of the ordinary. There's a balancing act to be forever maintained, not just of the moment, but over time

[ironphoenix]

Furthermore, this credibility exchange seems to be two-way. The acceptance or rejection one gets for his or her excentricities can create a feedback loop psychologically, leading in one direction to mental instability, and in the other to the idea's acceptance by others.

Okay, I think you may have lost me here. Again, slowly?

I haven't polled around deliberately, but I suspect that the pattern holds: there's too much evidence, and too much gain by the people who had/have power, to discount it entirely.

[peristaltor]

On credibility exchange, I was mainly referring to the phenomenon demonstrated by the Asch experiments, a general measure of conformity to one's peers. If you haven't already, read up on the wiki. It's so simple, it's a bit scary.

One thing the experiments did not measure, however, were consequences, what happened to people who saw the right answer but refused to bend to the confederates and the answers provided by those in on the fix. After being constantly reminded of their non-compliance, I would suspect that these people might slowly start going mad. There must be negative consequences for such memetic isolation, for being thought wrong by so many.

After all, I've noted before that even our most closely held beliefs prove subject to change should those around us provide convincing feedback or prod us to question those beliefs. People who refuse to accept the common assumption that 2+2=5 might go crazy when they keep seeing the answer "4."

. . . there's too much evidence, and too much gain by the people who had/have power,

[ironphoenix]

I hadn't actually read that; thanks for the link!

When the confederates are not unanimous in their judgment, even if only 1 confederate voices a different opinion, participants are much more likely to resist the urge to conform than when the confederates all agree. This finding illuminates the power that even a small dissenting minority can have.

This is also an important result, and a good reason for me to accept your earlier assertion that "spreading the word is not as ineffectual as it may seem."

And yes, pushing the folks who refuse to comply and seeing when they crack would be an interesting, although possibly unethical, experiment.