Disinformation

Once up on a time, in the 1930’s, propaganda was a new mind control tool. The basic idea used by the National Socialist Party in Germany and Stalin’s Russia was to control the media. Anyone that did not parrot the party line was silenced. There was no investigative journalism. There was no questioning of the party line. To some extent we this playing out in Second LifeTM.

Understanding vs Disinformation – Image by: oskay – Flickr

At the time and even now a basic tenant of propaganda was and is the Big Lie. The bigger the lie the more believable it becomes. But, it cannot challenge what the audience already believes.  That is handled by small lies and innuendo.  With no presentation of countering facts and dissent propaganda takes root and moves into people’s belief system. It is a simple matter of repetition.

An example of propaganda replacing established beliefs is the new growing belief science is done by consensus rather than by use of the scientific method.

Over time humans learn and knowledge expands. The British started and the Americans crystallized the ideas of free speech and enshrined them in Constitutions as the renaissance progressed. Those ideas have grown and forced changes in how those wishing to control people endeavor to exert their control. The new tool of the 21st Century is Disinformation. Propaganda plays its part, but now the cost of controlling the Internet and conventional media is far too high. The Big Lie can be challenged cheaply. Things do not pencil out for the controllers.

As people try to exercise speech those attempting to control others needed some way to disable free communication among individuals. Taking away speech is just one part of the effort. So, while many think we have won some battle with SOPA, PIPA, OPENA, and ACTA, we actually lost. New laws were put in place by the Obama Administration while we were being distracted with SOPA. And while it is debatable whether the laws that got through are as bad or worse, the laws are now being enforced.

The battle over Internet freedom was and is a slight of hand engagement. A primary tool is Disinformation. That tool is being used everywhere. We see it in all our media and we see it in Second Life. The Once Vice event is the result of a filed action based on a lie that has forced the Lab… well ‘forced’ may be an overstatement, scared the Lab into action and forced a creative type to defend their business. It could well bankrupt the individual and take them out, the probably goal of the lie.

To stop people from communicating the net is flooded with disinformation. It gets harder and harder to know who to trust or what to believe.  Part of the idea is to make it so hard to find the truth people simply give up. Surrendering mean ultimately giving up your freedom. How can you be free to support the ‘good’ when you can’t know which creative person developed a skin and who lied about creating it? If you can’t know or be accurately informed, any action you take may help the one who’s ethics you despise. You are effectively blocked, if you are conscientious, or some are punked, if they are just gullible. The controllers hope is enough can be punked to make the difference.

Your Part

Democracies and Republics only survive when the voters, people, are well informed, with ‘well’ including accurately informed. In this day and age that is not easy. So, we all need to study what those trying to control us are doing.

Things More Worrisome than AGW: Disinformation is an article explaining what Disinformation is and how it is used. I think the article is politically neutral and serves all people equally. Being able to recognize disinformation is the first step in an intelligent defense. The information is useful in SL and RL.

Be a voice for truth.

26 thoughts on “Disinformation

  1. This is exactly why I feel that the old ways do not work anymore. We need a new form of government. The key here is to not have ways for the public to be controlled. 1 that doesn’t allow 1 group of people to control what another group can do. Democracies were always 1 step away from pure socialism, or communism, or fascism. This is exactly why the founders of the US set up a republic, which is supposed to keep deceivers from taking away your fundamental rights. All you have to do to control a democracy is propagandize your views and put your people in all the top positions that control the flow of information. This is why you can’t watch a political show without them saying we live in a democracy, because they want people to think they can vote away their own right, and that they did it to themselves.

    We need a new paradyme. 1 that is completely market based. In an open and free market, the customer gets what they want and it is all voluntary. Socialism would be the complete opposite as there is only 1 solution for everything, and you are forced to adhere to that solution. All the functions of government could be done in a completely free market base system. Much like things get standardized in a marketplace, like every1 using html, or many other examples, the same thing would happen in a market based government. All the evils of the world would be flushed out of the system, as the whole system is voluntary. There is much more to a system like this, but that is the basic Idea.

    Here is a lengthy video that explains 1 example of how a free market government might work. http://youtu.be/2YfgKOnYx5A

    • I disagree. The American form of a Republic has worked better than anything else in 7,000 years of history. But, few people understand why it works because people are poorly educated in civics and history. So, they adopt the propaganda of a utopian socialist system.

      Have you even read the Federalist Papers?

      • Although I have read and seen many debates on the Federalist papers, I would never claim to have read them all, nor all of the Anti Federalist papers. By bringing this arguements up, you are by default arguing the faults of the constitution and the bill of rights. Don’t get me wrong here, I agree with you that our form of a Republic has been better. Just because something is better than before, is not a valid argument against what I and many others have proposed. The results of the last 100 years shows the major faults of our Republic quite blindingly. This is exactly why I have entertained the idea of a new form of civil discourse. One that does not have the same trappings.

        • I found it interesting that Alexander Hamilton argued against a Bill of Rights. His prediction of what would happen if A BoR were included has come true.

          It sounds like you are proposing a new form of government with out bothering to understand the existing ones. That sounds like a good plan for repeating the mistakes of our predecessors.

          • How about you actually watch the video I gave as an example before you go speculating on what I do and do not understand. I gave you the courtesy of reading you blog, and your views. Please try not to insult me when you won’t take the time to investigate my response.

            • You switched the subject… and there was no attempt to insult you. I was taking the time to investigate you. Just as I have Washington, Hamilton, Jay, and other founding fathers. Their knowledge of history and various forms of government was extensive. While there is less information on their debate skills, they seem to have been quite capable.

        • @medhue

          in the video mr friedman is describing a fealty system. he is quite an intelligent man so is difficult for me to understand why he seems to not acknowledge this

          • While I think you are bringing something up that has some similarities to a market based system, I really don’t think 1 can say they are the same. Plus, the problem that I see when talking about governments, history, and philosophy, is all the terminology, which I don’t feel is productive and tends to muddy the waters and adds to confusion. Basically, it is all the same things with twists anyways. A term like Market based, can be understood by any1 without any previous knowledge. Personally, I used to be a strict constitutionalist, but more and more I’m seeing the many flaws in it. Libertarianism seems to be a much more logical and moral solution that completely side steps all the pitfalls of a republic.

            • I can respect your belief. But, you are unconvincing.

              I think it was Einstein that believed the Germans were advancing science faster because of the precision of their language. There was less ambiguity and thus ideas were more clearly expressed and conveyed. Liberals, progressives, socialists… all love to change the definitions of words and confuse meanings. Terminology is the basis for expressing and conveying more precise ideas. The history of those words shows the prior mistakes. I believe that only muddies the water for those too lazy or disinterested to bother to understand. For all others it clarifies.

              The interaction of people and ideas is extremely complex. My belief is only well educated people have a chance of making something better. Only well educated people have a chance of understanding the implications of subtle changes to a free market. You seem to be catering to the lowest common denominator, which is what I see as trying to make a simple idea manage a highly complex issue. I can’t see it working.

          • For the most part, I agree with you, and you have hit the nail on the head about who I am catering to. I see no point in catering to people who have extensive knowledge on an issue, as they do not control anything and it doesn’t really matter what they think anyways. If change is to happen, then you have to convince the public, which is not going to know the different nuisances, nor the history around them. This does not mean that the average Joe is too dumb to understand. They just don’t need all the BS to muddy the waters. They can easily understand simple logic and examples that are clear.

            • I think the current political system exploits that lack of understanding and historical knowledge. Politicians count on ignorance, not stupidity. It is not a matter of intelligence, it is a matter of experience and understanding what has and has not worked in the past and why. The intelligence comes in after the history lesson (experiment) when a solution is needed and the problem is thoroughly understood.

              You seem to be taking advantage of it too and to some extent appear to suffer from the same problem. I would much rather people were paying enough attention to understand and have interest to learn.

              Governing people is not intuitive. The socialist line is a wonderful sounding utopian proposition. Many buy into it, but history has shown it does not work. Ask any 30 or 40 year Russian that came out of USSR.

              People will intuitively walk themselves into problems when they don’t know how things work. Just watch the SL forum as the clueless recommend how to fix SL. So, too there are lots of plans for fixing the world made by the uneducated and historically ignorant. You have yet to significantly demonstrate you’re different.

          • We will never have a public that is sufficiently educated in politics. That, in itself is the problem. It is completely rational for people to not want to be educated in politics and history. Each of us only has a limited amount of time on this earth and that time should be spent doing and learning about what we are most interested in. This is why I propose a system that can not be exploited at the levels we see now. This whole notion that we need some centralized government is outdated and will always inevitably lead to a form of slavery and oppression. People do not need to be governed by any1. Systems like socialism only succeed at getting support because the socialist have better propaganda. As long as people can’t do basic math, they will walk like zombies toward it because it offers all the freebies you could want. As we can see in SL, people love freebies.

            It’s pretty funny that you bring SL into the conversation, as it is the perfect example of what I propose, or at least the closest thing to it. My background is more philosophy and statistics. The problem in SL, again centers around the controllers. Years ago, when LL had less control, the economy was much healthier. It was their want to push the economy forward that caused it’s decline. Today, I’d say, from the statistics, that it is 1 simple things that has caused the majority of it’s decline today. Every economic and concurrency stat starts it’s decline around the same day. That day is the day they broke the inworld search. I also think that LL buying up Xstreet and the other marketplace were bad moves for the public and added to it’s instability. If the viewer, inworld search, and web marketplace were all left to private competing businesses, we’d have a much healthier SL.

            • Government cannot be left to the elite. If one’s freedom is not worth the time to keep it, it will be lost. There is no government that will run on autopilot. There are always those that will want to save us and run the show or game the system for personal gain, whether money or power.

              You may well be correct that SL is declining as the system becomes more centrally controlled.

          • Personally, I don’t think you get the principles that I’m advocating. The reason the elite can game the system is because they know exactly who to pay off. In a totally market based system with no central government, there is no1 to pay off. If 1 security firm does things their patrons don’t like, then that will result in them having less control. Monopolies can only exist in a statist system. Without the government’s protection, no monopoly could ever survive.

            • I have pushed you on the basic principles of human nature and the foundations of the US Constitution. You let them sail through and haven’t challenged them or provided better alternatives. I am convinced you haven’t even noticed.

              In a government where politicians interests and the people’s interests are not balanced the people always lose out.

              The idea that a monopoly could not survive without a government is odd. It is governments that are supposed to break them up. That is what happened to AT&T back whenever. It was a challenge for Microsoft. So, the US government is preventing some monopolies.

              How do you propose to prevent monopolies?

            • See the illusion is always that government is needed to break up monopolies. When any major corporation is investigated fully, you find out that the majority of all laws that seem to control an industry, are actually there to help the largest 1′s and keep out competition. Every safety related law is created by the corporate lobbies to raise the bar of entry. It happens in every market. The first thing the top corporations do is get together and convince the public that they need a license for a market. Then you convince them that they need regulation. Yes, the corporation has to pay for fines and more taxes, but that is a small price to pay to cut your competition in half. This is human nature and can not be avoided. And yes, it’s a conspiracy by it’s very definition.

              You will even see this in SL. How many times have there been talks openly about a license or special APPROVED content? This is exactly how it starts in every industry. It can not be stopped, and gradually and slowly, things will progress. Some industries faster, some slower.

              Even copyright and IP laws. Who do they protect? Not me! Not You! They are there strictly for monopolies to ensure their position. Is this some human right to own an idea. Is there some real harm to there being 2 or 1O mickey mouses. If the ideas are free, to progress to the best or most entertaining then society and scientific enhancement would double every few months. That would be best for the people at whole. Not 75 year patents or any copyrights. Yes, I think socially there are limits we could all agree to and have open debates and judgements made it a court both parties agree to.

              The the crimes of humanity exits only because there is 1 focused source with the sole monopoly of legal force for which a monopoly can pay off. A republic and a constitution were very good ideas, but when 1 groups is allowed to use legal force to compel another, there will always be corruption. Get rid of that 1 sole group, and the people decide what they want and each come to their own conclusions to help themselves and each other without the use of force.

  2. The free market is the best judge there could ever be on what is fair or proper in society. Let the ideas flow, but never except force as a reason for anything beside proper and righteous defense. When the market is free and open, the public decides what they are willing to pay for a given protection or product. Whatever they want, individually and without force.

    • …and you never answered the question. You did bring up more points of human nature that have to be balanced. But, no process to keep people from corrupting the system whatever it is.

      • The market balances everything and will prevent all monopolies. The answer is the free market. It does a better job an any government could ever do.

        • The free market does NOT, has never, and will not prevent monopolies. The economies of scale allow the creation of monopolies. Car manufacturing is the primary example of high entry cost and decreasing unit cost as more units are made. It is for all practical purposes impossible to complete in a market with high entry cost that is filled with established businesses. The established businesses systematically begin elimination of competition as a normal competitive process and monopolies are born.

          Ideas being out of touch with reality are the problem when people don’t study history and economics… You have no way to prevent monopolies and it appears you don’t understand enough economics, history, and business practices to make a convincing argument. I would guess you are trusting someone that told you a free market will balance everything or you came up with the idea. Your belief is mistaken.

          • If it makes you feel better to think I’m just ignorant, you can believe whatever you want to believe. You can stay in wonderland and believe all the propaganda that you want. I prefer to learn and study from the great minds of the past. Those would be Adam Smith, Mises, Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Hayek, and even Socrates. What you advocate for has been done over and over and over again, producing the same results everytime, which is serfdom. I think Einstein said something along the line of, “The measure if insanity is some1 who does the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result”.

            • Ayn Rand spoke often about the free market and thought a monopoly could not exist in a free market. But at the time the Rockefellers were building Standard Oil and were not hampered by the laws we have now. My point being that Standard Oil did not need government help and built a monopoly in a much freer marker. Std. Oil was one of the reasons that we got some of our first antitrust laws. Her argument was that an abusive monopoly could not exist. Most people reading her miss the nuances of what she said.

              The basic idea of a full out monopoly is prevented by the free market and in that respect Rand and numerous others are correct. But, just as a benevolent director/king can be a good thing, so too an objectivist monopoly or one guided by enlightened self interest can form, exist, and prosper indefinitely in a free market.

              While you can list off names and try some rather weak debate tactics, you have yet to provide substantive support for your ideas. Since you started by attempting to promote an idea for a new form of government, I pushed you to find the beef. So, where is the beef?

          • Actually, by the time Standard Oil was really broken up, they only controlled 11% of the oil market. It’s like you are reading this stuff right out of a propagandist high school history book. Of course, whenever an new market arises, the first 1′s that get there and dump the most money in first will have somewhat of a monopoly, for a while. It takes time for the competitors to ultimately compete directly with those first comers. Standard Oil is always used as an example, but it was already pooping out by the time the first lawsuit was filed. If anything, that’s a prime example of how the market responded before government could.

            See the market does it without force, where as government and laws can only function because of the use of force. The whole idea of a government is a socialist idea. This is why so many problems arise. It’s all built at the point of a gun. When people let the free market control how they interact, it is all completely voluntary and peaceful.

            Funny that you bring up monopolies first, cause that’s like the easiest argument to shoot down. You say Standard Oil, I point you to the reality of the history, instead of the propagandist history. We’ve all been bombarded with propaganda since we were born.

            • You got on topic and there is some beef…

              In the free market those industries that require substantial investment to start are hampered by existing market occupiers that have recovered their investment cost and can work on a thin profit margin. There is a point at which a new comer’s ROI is not an economically wise investment. Then an existing business can maintain its monopoly indefinitely effectively locking out competition.

              Rand’s and other’s ideas are that technological advancement and aging equipment will make it impossible for a company to maintain that advantage. She and others going down this path never saw, or at least addressed, that such companies can be the leaders in the tech development, patenting advances, and extending the monopoly.

              Provided the company management is enlightened enough to avoid pushing prices high enough to allow competition to start up, they can maintain the monopolies for decades. The volume sales can allow them huge profits on thin profit margins. Rand and others are right that eventually such monopolies will fail and be broken by free market forces as it is difficult to main such monopolies. What they don’t point out is how long it can take the unassisted free market to break a monopoly, life times. During those life times prices will consistently be higher than if there were considerable competition. Thus the anti-trust laws.

              Nor does Ayn include the ideas that corporate managers will learn over time. Each attempt and each failure adds knowledge. Monopolies get smarter. Omitting the anti-trust ideas a means of controlling behavior beyond Objectivist Morals and free market forces is still needed. A business/human can do all sorts of things to unfairly hamper the competition. While I hate using the idea of fairness, actions such as burning the competition out or otherwise sabotaging competition represent behavior we consider unfair and have made illegal. The free market in a perfect world MIGHT be able to inhibit such actions, but I know of no historical record of it ever doing so. The free market is good but not perfect.

          • An actual free market has never been tried. Patents are not a part of a free market. It’s a socialist idea. If you have knowledge that only you know, and do not want it to reach the public, then you have every right to withhold it, but you do not have the right to keep some1 else from developing it themselves. You do not have the right to get your government to use force to keep some1 else from developing it.

            Even libel laws are a socialist idea. Corporations use things like this to keep the public quite. We even have courts that do not allow hearings to be seen in public. When the people are fully informed to the crimes of a corporation, the public will react accordingly and the free market can serve it’s purpose. Instead people never hear of these crimes, or consider them rumor, so they can sleep well at night.

            Fairness is not something any group can decide, which is what government is. The free market is the only fair and just outcome where both parties walk away initially happy and content with the transaction. You can not call any government intervention fair. The very nature of the transaction makes it unfair. If it were fair, then both parties would agree and be content with the transaction.

            You may think that a monopoly is unfair. I have not love for families like the Rockefellers but if they could produce a product at certain price, still uphold all their contract, and people are willing to pay the price, who am I to say they can not. Now, if they commit a real common law crime, then they should be charged. If they get away with their crimes, then the offended should inform the public of these crimes. If the courts are too corrupt to prosecute, then the public will in the market.

            In a completely free and open market, few of us would ever some much time working in a factory. This would be only for the young and inexperienced. Most people would eventually start their won businesses, in whatever interested them, as long as the was enough room and money in that market to sustain them. Everything would be extremely cheap, with fierce competition in every market. Only the new market would have any chance of creating anything that would resemble a monopoly, As soon as the public saw they opportunities in that market, they would rush to fill the needs and get a piece of the action. Jobs would be plentiful, as most would be looking to hire, rather than looking to be hired. Colleges would be a waist of money in a free market as most businesses would look to train their own employees, and a college would never be able to keep up with the changes in any industry. An ambitious young person could create their own business and retire before they get to old to just enjoy life.

            Outside of common law, everything else is simply a corporatist, socialist, fascist tool to enslave people. They have no place in a free open market system.

            • OK… you’ve lost it. Patents, socialist… sorry, you are so far off the pier your hopeless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.