Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
David Aaronovitch has a new book out about this sort of thing (Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History), and had an article in the Sunday Times this week about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but made the general point that "The construction and circulation of audio and visual material devoted to 9/ll revisionism is easy on the internet. Cheap movies, often made using material not cleared for copyright, made and narrated by non-professional film-makers, have been posted on Google video, YouTube and other sites specialising in moving pictures. Invariably such items make the same claims to accuracy and balance as do mainstream TV programmes, but have been concocted with the smallest fraction of research and resource, though no little ingenuity".
I think the same thing is happening with the H1N1 outbreak - people are supposed to extend the same credibility that is given to Subject Matter Experts and the World Health Organisation, to proponents of various conspiracy theories such as "it is a man-made virus released by government agencies/New World Order/insert boogie-man of choice" (imho), who do not supply any evidence (that stands up to independent scrutiny).
|
Thanks for that. I have ordered that book on Amazon, Always been interested in why people believe in conspiracies so willingly, they hunt them out. That quote is correct in the double standard of those people though, the insistence on 'research' (which is a smoke screen to try and suppress superstition) yet they are awfully uninformed as they constructed a world in which the flaws in their logic are not confronted and instead the narrative in entirely supportive of their views.
The Alex Jones video where he tried to claim 7/7 happened before the elections? (Doesn't take much research to find out the date of an election does it?
). As well as these blogs trying to claim that "this virus had to be made in a lab" astonishing ignorance and then they call everyone else 'blind'.