No need to keep secrets. Just keep the public bamboozled.

[Truthseeker]

"You just need a constant stream of misleading information, half truths, and fictions to be promoted, pushed, and peddled until they are accepted as fact," Nick Turse wrote He also wrote Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.

To refute a few of my posts, Lil Pixie and others claimed that no organization as large as the U.S. government could keep secrets. But the way to keep the public from knowing what really happened or is going on is to churn out "misleading information, half truths, and fictions" and use propaganda tricks to "guide" public thinking. Click on this link and get some idea of how to bamboozle the public (you might prefer to scroll down until you see this title: "Misremembering America’s Wars, 2003-2053
The Pentagon’s Latest “Mission Accomplished” Moment")

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175808/

[seasanctuary]

Is this thread about the ability of the US government to keep secrets, or the ability of it to spin things when failing to keep secrets?

And how does this line of thinking draw a line between plausible conspiracy theories and crazy ones?

[Epoetker]

I generally agree that the public is very bamboozleable, but then again, that's why I also post numerous reactionary anti-democracy screeds.

At a scale of 300 million, any common feeling is far too heterogeneous to distill into meaningful (to say nothing of legal) public action against scoundrels in government, or business, or anything that has the entire public as a field to flee to. Unless you're writing to your Congressman or special prosecutor, I wouldn't advise expending any of your energies on outrage over dealing with root causes.

Also, drones are probably the best offense against these types, as no one can propagandize a drone.

[Sparko]

"You just need a constant stream of misleading information, half truths, and fictions to be promoted, pushed, and peddled until they are accepted as fact," Nick Turse wrote He also wrote Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.

Well that is exactly what you do, ain't it?

[KingsGambit]

Well that is exactly what you do, ain't it?

Well, I don't know if what he posts is generally accepted as fact, but...

[Sparko]

Well, I don't know if what he posts is generally accepted as fact, but...

well that is his goal and the propaganda sites he frequents, like Mercola.com - spread enough half-truths and lies and use fear to get people to believe your conspiracy theories.

[Cow Poke]

"You just need a constant stream of misleading information, half truths, and fictions to be promoted, pushed, and peddled until they are accepted as fact,"

This thread is about Obamacare?

Nick Turse wrote He also wrote Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.

They did not have cable news with 24 hour news cycles breathlessly competing for "the big story".

[Truthseeker]

Is this thread about the ability of the US government to keep secrets, or the ability of it to spin things when failing to keep secrets?

Both, but government in general.

And how does this line of thinking draw a line between plausible conspiracy theories and crazy ones?

I am attempting to rebut the notion that secrets should have leaked out of large organizations but didn't. The answer is, they may have but the public may still be unable to know what really is going on, because governments have ways of obscuring the truth. Turse's article shows some of the ways.

Why not accept the possibility some conspiracy theories do have evidence?

[Truthseeker]

Well that is exactly what you do, ain't it?

For example? And when you offer one, show -- really show that it's not true.

[Truthseeker]

Well, I don't know if what he posts is generally accepted as fact, but...

But . . . what?

[Truthseeker]

well that is his goal and the propaganda sites he frequents, like Mercola.com - spread enough half-truths and lies and use fear to get people to believe your conspiracy theories.

Might it not be you rather than I? For example, you're one of the guys who deny My Lai.

[JimL]

But the way to keep the public from knowing what really happened or is going on is to churn out "misleading information, half truths, and fictions" and use propaganda tricks to "guide" public thinking. Click on this link and get some idea of how to bamboozle the public.

Is this in reference to FOX NEWS?

[Truthseeker]

Is this in reference to FOX NEWS?

Not specifically. But many libertarians often say "Faux News"!

I wonder why you thought of Fox News.

[lilpixieofterror]

"You just need a constant stream of misleading information, half truths, and fictions to be promoted, pushed, and peddled until they are accepted as fact," Nick Turse wrote He also wrote Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam.

To refute a few of my posts, Lil Pixie and others claimed that no organization as large as the U.S. government could keep secrets. But the way to keep the public from knowing what really happened or is going on is to churn out "misleading information, half truths, and fictions" and use propaganda tricks to "guide" public thinking. Click on this link and get some idea of how to bamboozle the public (you might prefer to scroll down until you see this title: "Misremembering America’s Wars, 2003-2053
The Pentagon’s Latest “Mission Accomplished” Moment")

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175808/

You know, if you are going to attack what I have said, you might want to try what I have actually said. What I have actually said is that the government is very bad at keeping secrets, not that it was impossible for it to do so (at least for a time). Sorry though, I don't feel like reading your conspiracy theory nonsense and watching you argue that a lack of evidence is just more evidence for your case, so I'll let you argue with yourself on this one.

[Truthseeker]

You know, if you are going to attack what I have said, you might want to try what I have actually said. What I have actually said is that the government is very bad at keeping secrets, not that it was impossible for it to do so (at least for a time). Sorry though, I don't feel like reading your conspiracy theory nonsense and watching you argue that a lack of evidence is just more evidence for your case, so I'll let you argue with yourself on this one.

I did overstate what "Lil Pixie and others" said. But, why say things like that if not to refute my case in the JFK murder thread?

Arguing "that a lack of evidence is just more evidence for your case"? Too bad she will not be around to point out at least one example of that. Possibly she meant that she didn't see any witness evidence, therefore it is a lack of evidence--I don't know.