Laura said:
I do know that, like Rense, he had a big website about conspiracies and such long before 9/11. I then noticed that his format changed along the way and was actually modeled on the early SOTT format. I went back over all his archived pages at one point to figure out the dates and it was pretty clear to me that something was up there, but again, not sure what.
You're right, before he had a style similar to David McGowan's Center for an Informed America site. Then, shortly after 9/11, he had the more "daily links" format. I always thought it was because "9/11 changed everything" and the new climate led to a greated demand for "information." Which makes me wonder about my "marketplace of ideas" concept.... After 9/11 there were oviously millions of people around the world who had their worldviews challenged and NEEDED a new reasoning and understanding why. Just like JFK in '63 they would have been more inclined to look into "conspiracy theories" to explain what's happening in the world.
It would be folly to believe that the Powers That Be would not have been aware of this nor take this into account nor anticipate for that reaction and plan accordingly to guide that reaction to their own advantage.
Laura said:
One thing I notice in particular is his insistence that Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon exactly as Rumsfeld said. Rense, on the other hand, had articles that go different directions on that subject... What we notice about both of them is that they will hardly touch the Pentagon Strike and Rense only had it posted for the shortest time imaginable.
I know! The whole "there was a plane at the pentagon" was always an eyebrow riser for me on his site. Especially since his arguments...well, suck. And, again, the Pentagon Strike is another indicator...looks like another dog that didn't bark.
Laura said:
It's almost like there is a "different product" for different audiences, but all produced by the same maker and that makes me suspect that there is a specific poison contained within. ... I suggest that there is some other poison hidden in there and that is what needs to be looked at.
BINGO!
This is EXACTLY the idea behind my "Marketplace of Ideas" concept. Thank you Laura for neatly wrapping it so neatly.
I once worked for a big corporation which had many different types of stores that sold mostly leather goods, luggage, clothes, things like that. I worked for a couple of their stores and was surprised to learn that it was very common for them to have one of each store inside the same mall
even though they were all mostly selling the same things!
This struck me as rather odd. After all these stores are competing against each other, won't they cannibalize each others profits? I thought about it than I started realizing something. There were subtle differences amongst the stores, with certain emphasis on certain brands or products while other stores emphasized on other products. Different strokes for different folks. But the point was obviously not to have all your customers go to one store over the other, rather it was for the customers to have no choice but to go ONLY to YOUR stores.
Free Market ideologues often ignore the fundamental flaw in their ideology, namely that Free Markets usually don't exist, can't exist and when they do they are quickly destroyed by their own internal logic. The anarchic nature of the free market dictates that the goal of each participant is MONOPOLY, and NOT competition. In fact the sole goal is to DESTROY the competition, even before making a better product and getting a bigger market. In the realm of services and goods we see this throughout the industrial era.
But what about in the realm of ideas and ideologies?
Before the internet the media was pretty much controlled and people had a very, very limited "market" from which to choose their information. Sure there were underground newspaper, magazines, that sort of thing, but nothing on a massive scale. That changed with the internet. Before long it became clear that certain "niches" were beginning to form and people would visit the same type of websites that preached the same type of views or worldview. However, over time subtle differences began to appear and people would tend to view some sites over others based on very small, seemingly inconsequential differences.
Laura said:
Rivero goes after Zionists in a big way, Rense goes after Zionists, but Jones does not.
All 3 sites pitch to the "Christian Patriot" movement in one form or another. Some of the audience are more anti-Zionist willing to put all of America's faults on the Zionist's doors (Rense and Rivero), other are willing to dump it all on the NWO's feet (Rense and Jones) while Rivero seems to be more willing to look at America more critically than the other 2. Again, these may seem like fickle differences but to the mind of a reader, there's an almost unconscious filtering process that pulls them towards one site over another. If the reader believes that Zionists aren't as big and powerful as one site believes (like a certain reader in our forum whose
name will be
left unmentioned :D!) or if they believe the NWO is either too silly to believe or is actually the reason for all the world's problems, than they will naturally gravitate to another similar site that emphasizes the worldview he enjoys. But the thing is, ALL THESE SITES ARE FROM THE SAME SOURCE. They all pitch the same "poison" in other words. And, like a corporation, they control the market and are paid in an almost 'psychic currency' that ensures all their disinfo product is sold and the sheep are not led astray. It's a very tight mesh net and no one is allowed is slip through it...and anyone who does is villified and destroyed (I'm sure Laura and Co. understand that quite well).
Yes this is definitely something to look into. Trust me, what I just wrote was just the tip of the iceberg, this thing is way bigger and goes deeper than at first glace. I'm definitely wrapping my head around this little nugget for awhile. If I have something more indepth I'll be sure to post it on the site.
