Libel and Defamation Against SOTT, Cass, LKJ, QFG, etc

[RedFox]

1. very few searches for cassiopaea cult directly

I was just thinking of this. Most people will likely search for cassiopaea or cassiopeia without the word cult. A search on cassiopeia doesn't really lead us to cassiopaea.org neither to Bridge's sites, at least not on the first two google pages. A search on cassiopaea has both on the first page, but cassiopaea-cult doesn't appear.

IMO people could also search for Laura K.J., cause they like to know who is this person. Alas, also with this search entry, VBs defaming page shows up at the very top and cassiopaea-cult not at all.
I don't know how to improve something like that, only read that with -keywords- it could be possible to get a higher listing rank.

Searching for 'laura knight jadczyk' brings up http://cassiopaea-cult.com/tag/laura-knight-jadczyk-2 at number 3 above the defamers site. 'laura knight-jadczyk' however has no mention of the site at all! hmmm
its working....but still a little hit and miss

 

[Gertrudes]

I don't know how to improve something like that, only read that with -keywords- it could be possible to get a higher listing rank.

Well, I could be missing something here, but it is my impression that for a website to reach a higher rank it can take a few months. One of the companies I work for has completely revamped their website 2 years ago, and despite constant updates and us therapists making google searches and clicking on its page almost daily it took 6 months to reach its original status on the first page.

 

[Z...]

well the way I understood it there is a whole science behind this and if you have a good programmer it can be done, but I might be wrong

 

[Seamus]

Perhaps you could register a few more related domain names and direct them all to the same site. For instance:

cassiopeia-cult.com
laura-knight-jadczyk-cult.com

This could be accomplished several ways. One way would be to create DNS records that automatically redirect people to the main site, cassiopaea-cult.com. There are a few issues with this that are discussed briefly in this article.

Another method is to create "landing pages". I think this method is usually employed in conjunction with pay-per-click ads. Basically the secondary domain names are used to match as closely as possible to specific search phrases and keywords and the actual "landing page" website is designed to pull the visitor in and redirect them to the main site. This page has links to lots of resources about landing pages.

A pay per click ad campaign might actually be an effective way to drive traffic to the new site, and it probably would be extremely inexpensive as I doubt there are lots of pay per click ads, or even a ton of traffic targeting Cassiopea Cult, Laura Knight-Jadczyk Cult, etc. It would mean that if someone searched for one of these terms a link would appear at the very top of the Google search page, before any of the search results. You could even set one up for Cassiopaea and Signs of the Times that links directly to the cassiopaea-cult.com website.

Obviously a pay-per-click campaign would cost money, and since you are using all of the untold millions you collect from us members for your personal benefit, I'd be willing to help finance something along these lines you think it would be helpful. I'm sure there are members who are more knowledgeable about this than I am who will chime in, but FWIW I think this would be a way to use "the system" against the bad guys.

If successful we could set up a similar campaign for the EE site, which would help to introduce new people to EE. In this case people would hopefully buy EE DVDs and CDs, which would help to offset the cost of the pay-per-click campaigns. Then the bad guys would REALLY have something to complain about!

Any thoughts?

*Edited for redundancy.

 

[Renaissance]

Searching for 'laura knight jadczyk' brings up http://cassiopaea-cult.com/tag/laura-knight-jadczyk-2 at number 3 above the defamers site.

Strange, when I search "laura knight jadczyk" Bridges' cassiopaeacult page is number 3, and ours doesn't come up until the 5th page. Does Google's algorithm for page rank take into account geographical location, I wonder?

 

[Gertrudes]

Searching for 'laura knight jadczyk' brings up http://cassiopaea-cult.com/tag/laura-knight-jadczyk-2 at number 3 above the defamers site.

Strange, when I search "laura knight jadczyk" Bridges' cassiopaeacult page is number 3, and ours doesn't come up until the 5th page. Does Google's algorithm for page rank take into account geographical location, I wonder?

It's the same for me, cassiopaeacult comes third.

 

[Maia]

Laura,

You are quite right.

I recently use to (past tense) belong to another conspiracy board - tooted as the biggest one on the net.

I quoted one of your many insightful articles with source and giving full credit to you because much of what you and other editors here at SOTT write are very intelligent and asute views that need to be more widely seen.

This other site, deleted the entire post saying they do not condone nor will they put anything from your site on their site.

How vendictive. It sounded to me like a personal fight against SOTT.

SOTT, in my opinion has way more intelligent posts and seems to have been able thus far to control the infiltration of disinformation that seems to be spreading into so many "conspiracy" sites.

Why can't everyone share information and just try to get along?

United we stand, divided we fall - and TPTB are dividing us, distracting us and dumbing us down.

The sharing of information is the only way we are going to be able to think our way out of the box we seem to be currently trapped in.

 

[Renaissance]

I recently use to (past tense) belong to another conspiracy board - tooted as the biggest one on the net.

I quoted one of your many insightful articles with source and giving full credit to you because much of what you and other editors here at SOTT write are very intelligent and asute views that need to be more widely seen.

This other site, deleted the entire post saying they do not condone nor will they put anything from your site on their site.

Hmm, Above top Secret? If that was them, you might be interested in this thread: abovetopscret.com, Project SERPO, Project Camelot, Project Avalon to read about some of what's been discovered about them and why they wouldn't want people headed over here.

 

[Seamus]

Another thing to consider in all of this is the "Don't think of an Elephant" argument. I don't know how many of you read the book by that title. The author, George Lakoff, argues that one reason the Republican party has been so successful in American politics is that they have learned how to "frame the debate".

For instance, the republican party (or their wealthy backers) decided that they wanted to do away with the estate tax. "Estate tax" doesn't sound very scary, so they started calling it the "death tax." Who in the world would want to defend a death tax? Pretty soon the media was talking about the death tax, and then the Democrats started using that terminology when they were trying to defend it. But whenever someone hears the phrase "death tax," it evokes an emotional response. Similarly, the abortion debate is not framed in terms of "pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion," it is "pro life vs. women's choice". Both sides have tried to frame their stance on the issue in a way that evokes a strong emotional response.

My point is that if the bad guys are calling us a cult, and we spend a lot of time trying to to convince people that "we are NOT a cult", people will still associate term "cult" with Cassiopaea and Laura. Its like name calling on the playground. "Emily, you're a jerk!" "Nuh uh, Timmy I am not a Jerk!" "Hey Joey, did you hear that Timmy called Emily a Jerk?" "Well I don't think Emily's a Jerk" "Me neither, Emily's not a Jerk". Meanwhile everyone else just hears "blah blah blah Emily blah blah blah blah jerk" They don't know if she's a jerk or not, but they might be thinking "gee whiz... I've never met Emily, but everyone else seems to think she's a jerk. SHE says she's not, and her friends say she's not a jerk, but I think I'll stay away just to be safe".

This whole cult business could be a similar situation. Just saying "we're not a cult" still puts us in the cult category. We might want to think about spending some time trying to re-frame the debate. Find a different category to associate ourselves with. Like it or not, most people make snap judgments based on the first thing they see. In addition to directly refuting the "cult" charge, we could come up with some other term that we could use to refer to the group. Like "think tank," or "peace coalition". Preferably something really simple that evokes a positive emotional response, basically the opposite of "cult".

Any thoughts?

 

[truth seeker]

Any thoughts?

To me, this situation is no different from neighborhood gossip. Unfortunately, it seems that in the case of gossip or any lie, it is as if someone threw feather out into the air - it's impossible to get them all back. Some people may put them in their pocket to keep, some feathers go down the drain pipes, etc.

I think the thing to do is what we're already doing, focusing on the character of the person or people involved. Letting people know just how normal everyone is thereby making those using the 'c' word look questionable.

Another purpose of the site is to reverse or counter the negative information in the minds of those who might be susceptible to believing such accusations by showing a more objective view of the situation.

So to use your example, Emily gets called a jerk. Emily's friends say to everyone on the playground "Emily's such a nice person, why would anyone think she's a jerk. I don't get it." People are invited to Emily's house to play all the while Timmy's still on the playground yelling "jerk?". Who would you believe?

The one's who stay away "just to be safe" were never really Emily's friend regardless of what was or wasn't said.

Fwiw.

 

[anart]

Like "think tank," or "peace coalition". Preferably something really simple that evokes a positive emotional response, basically the opposite of "cult".

Any thoughts?

I see your point and think there is truth to it, actually. At this point, however, I'm not sure there is much to be done to reign in that cult meme, other than keep telling the truth for those who can hear it. I like the 'think tank' idea, though - it's much more accurate!

 

[Gawan]

Any thoughts?

Personally I really like the idea, of creating something new, with which people could get identified. Nonetheless imo it is also important, to bring up the truth, cause the word cult is still there and used against us.

:cultivation of knowledge:/ cultivators of knowledge: :) Maybe in the ad industry something similar happened before (got accused of something and invented something new) and how they counter measured it. Imo big brands like coke and pepsi did something like that. On the other hand it is like creating another brand, which has to be sold too.

My two cents.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

Another thing to consider in all of this is the "Don't think of an Elephant" argument. I don't know how many of you read the book by that title. The author, George Lakoff, argues that one reason the Republican party has been so successful in American politics is that they have learned how to "frame the debate".

Awesome book... It could almost be (except for the unfortunate lack of understanding of psychopathy) an introduction to ponerology in modern U.S. politics.

And good point... The neo-conservatives and their think tanks with virtually unlimited budgets and no agenda other than "framing issues" eventually gained control of media to the point that framing issues was actually about associating all kinds of emotions and ideals with certain words. The example that stood out in my mind after reading the book was "gay marriage." At some point, the phrase itself was loaded with a menacing connotations for the "American way of life" for a certain demographic. When this demographic gets their backs up about gay marriage attacking the Christian foundations of marriage, a sort of archetypal response in terms of defusing the framing is a question like, "Do you really want the government to tell you who you can love?" This kind of response stops the casually programmed person in his/her tracks.

As the word "cult" has already been so deeply defined and any discussion about them has already been so deeply framed, I think reframing the debate is not necessarily about inventing new names for stuff or trying to separate the word "cult" from its frame but about understanding who this framing works on and how and then formulating the correct response or image in a way that is accessible to the values of the person upon who the framing works on. My god... That was a terribly wordy sentence.

What I am trying to say is that Lakoff's conception of framing a debate and what he sees as neo-conservative framing of debates in American politics is about appealing to certain value systems that exist deep in people's psyches. I understood him to be saying that everyone has a mixture of a progressive, nurturing value system and an authoritarian value system, and that these think tanks figured out how to present issues in such a way as to activate the authoritarian value system in an individual.

So I guess for us in these terms, framing the debate would be finding the language and symbols to appeal to the values in people that we want to appeal to. It did take these think tanks a good 50 years to fully realize their goal, which was to get the fundies to vote en masse, so it is not a snap your fingers and it is done kind of thing.

Trying to re-frame this debate in our favor would take empathy, consideration, and cleverness in large amounts. I don't think taking on the phrase cassiopaea cult for the website is that bad of a start actually, in terms of reframing that is. In terms of content, obviously the site is awesome.

 

[Seamus]

As the word "cult" has already been so deeply defined and any discussion about them has already been so deeply framed, I think reframing the debate is not necessarily about inventing new names for stuff or trying to separate the word "cult" from its frame but about understanding who this framing works on and how and then formulating the correct response or image in a way that is accessible to the values of the person upon who the framing works on. My god... That was a terribly wordy sentence.

What I am trying to say is that Lakoff's conception of framing a debate and what he sees as neo-conservative framing of debates in American politics is about appealing to certain value systems that exist deep in people's psyches. I understood him to be saying that everyone has a mixture of a progressive, nurturing value system and an authoritarian value system, and that these think tanks figured out how to present issues in such a way as to activate the authoritarian value system in an individual.

You seem to have a better memory/understanding of the book than I do! Either that or my ponerized mind related more to the strategy of the Neo Conservatives when I read it.

I agree with your argument to a point. One thing to consider might be that although this group is well known in certain circles, the Fellowship and the EE program is really trying to reach out to a larger audience who may have never heard of us before. It could be because I haven't been around as long as many of you, but I was thinking that the cult debate was a relatively recent charge. I didn't realize that the debate has already been going on for a while and is already strongly framed.

Any thoughts?

To me, this situation is no different from neighborhood gossip. Unfortunately, it seems that in the case of gossip or any lie, it is as if someone threw feather out into the air - it's impossible to get them all back. Some people may put them in their pocket to keep, some feathers go down the drain pipes, etc.

I think the thing to do is what we're already doing, focusing on the character of the person or people involved. Letting people know just how normal everyone is thereby making those using the 'c' word look questionable.

Another purpose of the site is to reverse or counter the negative information in the minds of those who might be susceptible to believing such accusations by showing a more objective view of the situation.

So to use your example, Emily gets called a jerk. Emily's friends say to everyone on the playground "Emily's such a nice person, why would anyone think she's a jerk. I don't get it." People are invited to Emily's house to play all the while Timmy's still on the playground yelling "jerk?". Who would you believe?

The one's who stay away "just to be safe" were never really Emily's friend regardless of what was or wasn't said.

Fwiw.

I agree with you, it really is like neighborhood gossip. Maybe the people we're interested in attracting are the kind of people who are going to make up their own mind regardless of what other people say.

Its not that I think the anti-cult website isn't helpful. Part of what I was trying to get at is that it is still a reaction to what our adversaries are saying about us. What we are doing now is damage control, because in this discussion they are starting out with the upper hand, because they initially framed the debate. Sun Tzu put it this way:

Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted.

Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him.

In this case our enemy was first in the field, so now we must defend ourselves from this cult charge. But we should be thinking about a long term strategy, not just for combating this charge, but for improving our image so that we're impervious to future charges as well. How can we frame future debates so that we have the upper hand? How can we make sure that we're first to the next field of battle? How can we impose our will on our enemy, rather than reacting to their attacks?

I see your point and think there is truth to it, actually. At this point, however, I'm not sure there is much to be done to reign in that cult meme, other than keep telling the truth for those who can hear it. I like the 'think tank' idea, though - it's much more accurate!

Personally I really like the idea, of creating something new, with which people could get identified. Nonetheless imo it is also important, to bring up the truth, cause the word cult is still there and used against us.

:cultivation of knowledge:/ cultivators of knowledge: :) Maybe in the ad industry something similar happened before (got accused of something and invented something new) and how they counter measured it. Imo big brands like coke and pepsi did something like that. On the other hand it is like creating another brand, which has to be sold too.

My two cents.

So I guess for us in these terms, framing the debate would be finding the language and symbols to appeal to the values in people that we want to appeal to. It did take these think tanks a good 50 years to fully realize their goal, which was to get the fundies to vote en masse, so it is not a snap your fingers and it is done kind of thing.

Trying to re-frame this debate in our favor would take empathy, consideration, and cleverness in large amounts. I don't think taking on the phrase cassiopaea cult for the website is that bad of a start actually, in terms of reframing that is. In terms of content, obviously the site is awesome.

Maybe it is almost like branding or image management. Not in the way that a big corporation or a politician does it, because they are basically constructing a mask to show to the public that doesn't necessarily reflect their actual values and goals. I think this group has a distinct advantage because we don't have to construct some kind of mask or brand, we just have to find a way to "get the word out" about ourselves.

As I recall, part of what makes the neo conservatives so successful is that all of them are on the same page all of the time. They all stay "on message". They work out a strategy for how they're going to handle an issue, and then they are very disciplined.

 

[Seamus]

So I guess for us in these terms, framing the debate would be finding the language and symbols to appeal to the values in people that we want to appeal to. It did take these think tanks a good 50 years to fully realize their goal, which was to get the fundies to vote en masse, so it is not a snap your fingers and it is done kind of thing.

Trying to re-frame this debate in our favor would take empathy, consideration, and cleverness in large amounts. I don't think taking on the phrase cassiopaea cult for the website is that bad of a start actually, in terms of reframing that is. In terms of content, obviously the site is awesome.

I forgot to emphasize the point you brought up about it taking 50 years for the neocons to really get things rolling. We should keep that in mind. Even if our enemies have been framing this group as a cult for 10 years, its not too late for us to start working for ourselves. The cassiopaea-cult website is a great start.