Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

I was listening to an author on the car radio today and unfortunately I didn't get her name or the book she has written. It is about the promise and deficits of social media during and after the Arab Spring.
What struck me was her contention that the world's power brokers are actively using conspiracy theory to their own ends. Rather than blocking the internet, they flood it with conspiracy theories of their own as a way of overloading people and making them question everything.
The idea is that if it's all lies, then what is true?

Kevin wrote: "What struck me was her contention that the world's power brokers are actively using conspiracy theory to their own ends. Rather than blocking the internet, they flood it with conspiracy theories of their own as a way of overloading people and making them question everything...."

That is most definitely happening as I think you can see in the recent political campaigns like that of Trump's and also in the UK's BREXIT campaign.

Far Right groups, hate groups and Neo Nazis can also use conspiracy theories to spread racism or divide peoples, like with their horrible Holocaust denial theories.

However, that doesn't mean we should forget conspiracies, real ones, are occurring everywhere.

I think the key is to demand facts. Documented court cases, mainstream media news reports (where investigative journalists fact check everything) and especially declassified documents from intelligence agencies, are all very good ways to learn about verified conspiracies. Leaked info from whistleblowers are also a good way to begin researching such things.

It's like what Julian Assange once said:
"There are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse the two."

In this group, you'll find within the various discussion threads a lot (as in hundreds) of little-known, underreported conspiracy facts whether they be from news stories, court cases or more commonly declassified documents.

And we don't always agree about which category to put them in. :)

Getting back to this - the way to give a certain head of state credibility is to disseminate false stories about his actions which can be easily disproved, thereby calling into question all discrediting information against him. One could also reverse this by disseminating positive information about an adversary which can again be easily disproved, thereby discrediting all positive information about the adversary.
I suppose that what one needs is a fairly stable base for decision-making that is not based on "information" alone.
Right now, I am willing to be that most people are wondering what is or is not true from any source.