Conspiracy of Truth

Tim Pool has a very interesting video, “”Journalists” Are Narcissistic Sociopaths Who HATE You” in which he outlines the problems caused by activist journalists.

At which point ‘good slaves’ (those who claim to critically think, but actually uncritically obey) will reach for a copy of the 2018 Data and Society report Alternative Influence by Rebecca Lewis, find Tim Pool’s name at the heart of the matrix and turn away for fear of infection.

For as we know it, or are lead to believe, we must remain pure in matters of diversity and inclusion and know our place. The slightest exposure to Sargon of Akkad, or Stefan Molyneaux, or any of the other names listed as ‘dangerous influencers’ will have you strapping on a Luger, pulling on your jackboots and crying “Start Ze Tiger Hans”.

Which does, if you bother to think about it, suggest that what we are meant to believe is incredibly brittle, and easily broken.

The answer is politics.

Though a slightly more complex answer is the way in which politics is presented. And the even more complex answer is the way in which the various algorithms work to generate suggested content. And the even more complex complex answer is the way in which the algorithms work to generate content that is deemed advertisers friendly.

But don’t worry about such things when there are conspiracy theories to sow, and for that first you must scare the reader, then convince them that you know more than them, and then add an enemy: who will play on the readers fears: and only you can save them.

This is were the narcissistic sociopaths come in.

It is a constant source of amazement how gullible and greedy the left is for conspiracy theories. Take Carole Cadwalldr and her Cambridge Analytica story. As the plot for a thriller it is not bad, as an explanation for the Brexit result it is total tripe. Yet, in much the same way as the right drag up the Coudenhove-Kalergi plan (are sent to hear sermons from mystical Germans who preach from ten to four), you will find it peppering Remainer posts all over the place.

That it makes no sense doesn’t matter. That it is easily disproved doesn’t matter. That it relies on ignoring how people actually consume information (it takes five repetitions to learn a thing, and nine repetitions to unlearn it) doesn’t matter. All that matters is it scares you, takes more than five minutes to explain (complete with lots of ‘no,no, you don’t understands’) and that it has that ultimate terror: it requires people to read.

A personal favourite of this genre, though not much mentioned these days, is the story of Trump and the disabled journalist. At one time it was the go to explanation of why people didn’t like Trump (for now we shall ignore that like Brexit, Trump’s victory in 2016 (the year of the Monkey) threw a spanner in the works of the mega corporations the left purports to dislike). If you point out to people, that the story they believe, with regard to Trump and Serge Kovaleski, confirms them to be the disablist that they claim Trump to be (but wasn’t): they absolutely refuse to accept it.

And why should they? They don’t know the story. All they know is the story they have been told.

Which is why the conspiracy theories of Carol Cadwalldr have such resonance. It is doubtful anyone believing her tales of Machiavellian puppet-masters ever saw or received any of the messages. If they see the messages reproduced in her reporting (in the Guardian) they do so in the context of their being sinister, deceptive, in contradiction with what they have learned from the Guardian’s reporting of Brexit (which was wall-to-wall anti-Brexit): remember, it is harder (and takes more effort) to unlearn something, than to learn it.

It is this extra effort that determines confirmation bias, more than the actual information presented. The information is entirely neutral, even incidental. The only questions relevant to the person presented with it is: is it new? Does it contradict an current belief? How much does it matter? And is it worth the effort to unlearn (or reassess) current received wisdom?

Various social factors may apply, like what will people think of me if I believe or express this opinion: dependent upon a persons level of socialisation. And, in the given climate, “will I be sacked?”

But the trick is to confirm, and reaffirm, and to prey upon the prejudice of the consumer.

And this the narcissistic sociopaths do to great effect…