|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
Pnoid ufo related online zine issue #3
THE PARANOID NEWS. An On-Line Newsletter.
Issue #3. June 30, 1994.
-----> "The Enemy is Ourselves." <-----
Written, published and copyrighted by [email protected].
See bottom for subscription/copyright info.
In this issue...
FLOURIDATION REBUTTAL
ERRORS OF REASONING
[Note: This file ends with "#####". Check for truncation.]
----- FLUORIDATION REBUTTAL -----
A reader on the internet, upset by our dismissal of the government
fluoridation plot in PN #2, sent us the following rebuttal by
email. To avoid any charges of manipulation, we have reprinted
the message in full exactly as received, removing only the
writer's email address to protect his privacy. We have never met
this person and know him only by this message.
Date: 94-04-02 23:54:40 EDT
From: -------
Subj: Paranoid News Rebut
To: PsychoSpy
The Activists News, An On Line Rebuttal to
THE PARANOID NEWS published by [email protected]
The one thing I know about Floridation is this, Go into
a large, old, big, hardware store, Look for RAT POISON,
look at ingredients - there was / is only one ingredient-
Sodium Floride, the most toxic, ionic molecule outside of
Potassium Dichromate - I recall this vividly, 30 years ago,
when it was being debated, reading the small print on a can
labeled TRIPLE RAT POISON.
Sodium Flouide was at the time piling up as an industrial by
product
The FDA Researcher, who tried to blow the whisle on Flouride
was demoted and removed. He recently won a mega lawsuit, which
got him 10 years back pay...(but still left him ignored and
unpublished..)
I fed my wife and child distilled water, to which I added
Magnesium, Calcium, potassium, boron, trace mineral salts to
approximate what my understanding is of what nature intended
water to be before the PH started changing and chlorine and
Flouide were added by the priesthood.
Everyone says - why is he so calm?- He smiles all the time-
what a happy baby - I wish my child was like that -
At day care you can REALLY see the difference - He is 7 months
old, is at 115 percentile height and 90 pctile weight, weighs
21 lbs, and sleeps through the night. he also looks good, -
when I look at other babies , they seem puffy, and inflamed,
like they are retaining water or something - and they cry,,,
2 different day care attendants asked me "why is Joseph so
happy??"
Now all the scientific testing in the universe could not prove
what a lifetime exposure to trace amounts of RAT POISON would
do
I give you 2 facts: 1) RAT POISON, Toxic Industrial byproduct
2) My son Joseph.
Oberg would demand a scientific study - albeit done by fully
vested members of the priesthood.
You want to know the truth - follow the trail of money greed &
power - follow the trail of those who would treat you as an
object - an object to be used, manipulated, and discarded when
you are no longer of any value to the order....an object
without humanity.
You see the mentality needed to put Rat poison in drinking
water demands that one not view the common people as people -
that would be unethical - they must be viewed as objects - then
you can displense with them at your pleasure.
And I take issue - with your pompous --NATURE OF THEORIES--
You immediately say it is incomprehensible -
I say perhaps its just incomprehensible to you.
"If a theorist explodes in anger when asked a skeptical
question, this may be a sign that the underlying logic may be
flawed and the question indeed was a good one."this was the
reaction I got when I suggested to Dr Harvey Slatin, (who
worked the enrichment process on the manhattan project) whether
Einstien had boobytrapped his theories after seeing what man
had used his genius for....
"Human society is, at best, a loosely structured chaos that
mostly governs itself." this is rot...
from the police force, to the county government, what passes
for the judical system, all the way to the federal level is
hopelessly corrupt and self serving - There are many
conspiracies as there are layers of an onion, and there have
been since the beginning of time.
Iand it does not GOVERN it is capable only of exploits,
enslavement, and delusion...
Perhaps the only GOVERNING being done on this planet at this
time is in Peru, where the premier has cut the size of the
government to 1/2 what is was, AND streamlined it, and is now
advertising for the able to go live there under an efficient,
ethical government with the lowest tax load in the free world!!
(ala Ayn Rand - ATLAS SHRUGGED)
Thats government.
Most people live in a dreamland of delusion, hypnotically
impressed upon thier psyche at 60 flashes per second -
Television -
All one has to do to evaluate the conspiracy is talk to a few
neighbors -
Then watch some TV
Then talk to a few neighbors
Then watch TV
Compare what you see with what TV says you see...
And there are MANY MANY PEOPLE WHO DON'T TALK TO THEIR
NEIGHBORS -
-
Which situations are real?
Surely Not the politically correct drivel on TV.
When I child grows up thinking this is a kind, sensible,
nurturing world - 'tis a rude awakening at the first betrayal -
just consider how you think life should be - then read a
newspaper - If common sense dictates a productive, inquisitive,
uncompromising outlook to be rewarding - what sense it there
when confronted with those who have no ability except the
privileged strappings of power.
----- ANALYSIS -----
As we understand the writer, fluoridation was started thirty years
ago to dispose of our nation's industrial stockpiles of sodium
fluoride and to deliberately poison the population. We sense that
it would be futile to engage in a debate with this writer because
he will find a response for every objection we can raise. If we
presented a scientific study to confirm the benign nature of
fluoridation, he will counter that the scientists who conducted it
are corrupt and under the control of the "priesthood."
Internet users can examine the alt.conspiracy newsgroup for
endless theories like the fluoridation plot described above.
Hundreds of claims are posted concerning fluoridation, AIDS, the
Waco incident, the false Holocaust, the alien/government collusion
and, of course, the Kennedy assassination. Each theory may seem
plausible on the surface and could indeed be true, but many of
them conflict with each other, and we will never have the time
evaluate every one. We can only focus on the few that seem
relevant to us and that exhibit some basic level of coherence and
credibility.
If we don't have time to fully investigate the claim itself, then
all we can do is evaluate the claimant and the quality of his
argument. Each individual has their own personality--their style
of operating--and some personalities inspire more confidence than
others. A highly emotional person with an ax to grind is a less
reliable witness than a more neutral investigator who exhibits
intellectual discipline and an attention to detail. The fact that
a witness is undisciplined does not prove that his claims are
false, but it increases the noise level of his message and reduces
our confidence in his judgment.
We know from the above message that the writer exhibits neither
discipline nor attention to detail. For example, he has spelled
"fluoride" three different ways, none of which match the
dictionary. The two points of "proof" he cites for his theory are
weak and circumstantial: (1) Sodium fluoride is an ingredient in
rat poison, and (2) his baby, without fluoride seems healthier
than others. His arguments ramble into other areas: television,
big government, Einstein and the "priesthood"--which is presumably
the secret committee that runs the world. If his theory has been
carefully thought out, it doesn't show in his correspondence.
Even if the witness showed more signs of discipline, his topic is
not yet compelling enough to most of us to warrant investigation.
Given that most of us have been drinking fluoridated water for
years and feel perfectly fine, finding the truth about
fluoridation is not one of our highest priorities. We face other
problems that seem more immediate and promise greater rewards if
solved.
----- ERRORS OF REASONING -----
The "Activist News," illustrates several common errors in research
and reporting....
(1) Circumstantial evidence is taken as proof.
(2) Research is halted at a superficial level.
(3) No alternative explanations are offered or evaluated.
(4) Emotional interpretations are expressed in lieu of facts.
Errors like these allow a person to find reassuring support for
whatever theory he has already chosen. They appear frequently in
the speech and writings of conspiracy theorists and the clinically
paranoid.
----- CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE -----
As proof of the fluoridation plot, the writer cites the
observation that his son, raised without fluoride, seems healthier
than other children. This evidence, even if true, only suggests
that a connection is possible; it does not prove it. The writer's
logic is saying: 'A' precedes 'B'; therefore 'A' must have caused
'B'. If Joseph is bigger than other babies his age, the lack of
fluoride in his water could indeed have been the cause, but there
could be many other factors to account for the variation:
genetics, nutrition, disease, environment. There is a wide
natural range in the height, weight and demeanor of babies no
matter how you raise them, and these factors alone may not be a
significant gauge of lifetime health. If we look at only one baby
and this one variable, the only conclusion we can make is that the
lack of fluoride isn't hurting him significantly. We cannot be
sure that it is helping.
The world is full of random coincidences. There are so many
things happening at once in any environment that interesting
events are bound to occur together from time to time even if there
is no connection between them. If, at a party, you find that
someone else's birthday is the same as yours, it doesn't
necessarily signify that you were twins separated at birth. Even
one-in-a-million coincidences are relatively common in everyday
life because there are always a million routine events going on,
and we only notice them when an unusual coincidence attracts our
attention.
Suppose you happen to be thinking about someone you haven't heard
from in years, and then, remarkably, the phone rings and it is
them. This event could be caused by psychic communication between
the two of you, but it could also be a product of random chance.
If you calculate the probability of this event occurring again, it
seems like an impossible long shot, but these odds are not
meaningful in retrospect. The fact is, you only noticed the
coincidence because it was unusual; you didn't recall all the
routine circumstances where no coincidence occurred. The
coincidence itself is a bright beacon that draws your attention in
a sea of unremarkable events.
The person who needs a conspiracy can seize upon any providential
coincidence as "proof" that something sinister is taking place.
The juxtaposition of apparent cause and effect "could not possibly
be coincidence," he loudly proclaims. The occurrence was even
"inevitable" given the high-level conspiracy that the theorist
contends is taking place. This analysis is usually in hindsight,
however; the supposedly inevitable event is rarely predicted in
advance. Instead of the theory predicting the event, the theory
is more often modified slightly to match the coincidence after it
happens.
Generally, humans are unreliable witnesses, not because they often
hallucinate, but because they tend to notice and remember what
they feel comfortable with and forget the million things that do
not fit. This isn't necessarily a conscious process; it is an
inherent characteristic of human attention and memory. You can't
deal with all of the world at once, so your eyes automatically
focus on the things you know how to deal with or expect to be
true. Observations that do not fit your chosen theories rarely
make it to the brain and are usually forgotten if they do.
If Joseph had been less healthy than other children, would the
writer have told us about it? In that case, he might forget about
the child and recall some other benefit instead, like how his own
ailments were cured or his wife made more docile by the drinking
of unfluoridated water. Attention and memory are always
selective. They can provide "proof" for anything if you are
willing to accept selected circumstantial evidence.
----- SUPERFICIAL RESEARCH -----
The other evidence the writer cites is his observation that sodium
fluoride is the principal component in rat poison. If fluoride is
poisonous to rats in this compound, then it must be poisonous to
humans when added to drinking water. Again, the evidence is
presented in isolation and may be only a selected coincidence.
There must be hundreds of fluoride compounds. If any are benign
or helpful, would the writer have told us about them?
To extend a conclusion about rat poison to water fluoridation
would require an understanding of chemistry and biology. Oxygen,
for example, is essential for human life, but some forms of it,
like ozone and carbon monoxide, can be highly poisonous. The fact
that oxygen or fluorine is used in a substance does not prove that
the larger chemical is good or bad. To make the extension from
one instance to another, one has to take the time to understand
the laws of chemistry and how chemical substances interact with
living things.
One senses that the writer would not be willing to make this
investment. The superficial connection between rat poison and
fluoridated water seems to support his theory as it is, so why
investigate further? Indeed, further research runs the risk of
disproving the connection. The thought of studying chemistry or
consulting a qualified chemist may trigger anxiety in the
researcher because this pursuit would run the risk of unpleasant
truths. To disable the threatening knowledge before it can
happen, the writer can withdraw from further investigation and
dismisses all scientists as stooges of the priesthood.
----- ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS -----
In a court of law, a case against a defendant cannot be proven
until the defense counsel is allowed to offer alternative
explanations for the incriminating evidence presented by the
prosecution. If someone was robbed and murdered, and a few days
later his wallet and the murder weapon are found in the possession
of the defendant, this evidence would seem to indicate that the
defendant committed the crime. There are other possible
explanations, however, and the accused cannot be found guilty
until the defense is given an opportunity to explore them.
Any theory cannot be held valid until all alternative explanations
for the data are eliminated. The writer above, while telling us
about Joseph's good health, fails to offer or evaluate any other
explanation for it. Without a methodical review of the
alternatives, any evidence is inconclusive. It is possible that
the writer has explored all the alternatives, but since he does
not offer us this data, we cannot evaluate it.
If you consider only one explanation for the data and ignore all
others, then of course your theory seems to be the best. The case
only falls apart when some skeptical outsider is allowed to offer
a different explanation. The author of an inherently weak theory
usually senses this threat, at least unconsciously, and may take
various actions to censor the conflicting views. Alternative
explanations remain unspoken by the theorist except in ridicule,
and he avoids unstructured contact with anyone who might lend them
more credibility. If any credible competing views do reach his
ears, they are often obscured by a decoy action, typically an
explosion of anger or some other noisy diversion.
An outburst of anger does not prove that a theorist's position is
weak, but it damages our trust in his discipline and neutrality.
The credibility of any argument is greatly enhanced when the
author himself calmly lists the alternative explanations and
attempts to methodically disprove them. The argument could still
be flawed, but at least we have the structure to show where it is
wrong. An author who is already emotionally invested in his
theory may not relish such a debate. He prefers to present his
evidence only in isolation and expects the listener to take him at
his word that all alternatives have been explored.
----- EMOTIONAL INTERPRETATIONS -----
Distilling real cause-and-effect connections from a sea of random
coincidences is a difficult challenge for anyone. Inside each of
us are emotional pressures to believe in certain theories because
they get us off the hook in some way. We feel attracted to
theories that make us seem important or that support the
investments we have already made, but our feelings do not make the
theories right. Ultimately, we must contend with "reality"--the
mechanisms and characteristics of the outside world that are
independent of how we feel. Reality is infinitely complex, but it
has a structure, and by coming up with simplified theories about
how the structure works we can learn to live within it and get
what we want from it. Reality is the only valid judge of our
theories; emotions are largely irrelevant and usually only get in
the way.
Finding the truth--or getting as close as we can to it--demands a
certain emotional neutrality. Only the facts, not our feelings,
can prove a case. Separating emotions from the data is the goal
of professional journalism, which has developed a set of accepted
standards for the reporting of facts. In a newspaper, judgmental
adjectives are supposed to be avoided, descriptions are neutral,
and emotional evaluations usually appear only in direct quotes by
embroiled participants. The writer above has ignored these rules.
He colors his reporting with an emotional tone that makes us
believe he is already heavily invested in his own theories and can
consider no others.
That all government is "hopelessly corrupt and self-serving" is
neither fact nor evidence. It is purely an emotional
interpretation by the writer. These words tell us how he feels,
but they do nothing to support his argument or bring us closer to
the truth. We would rather know about specific instances of
corruption and be shown how these examples reflect on government
as a whole. In the end, the conclusion that the government is
"corrupt" holds no practical meaning. We need a more concrete and
neutral analysis to tell us what the problem is and what we can do
to address it.
----- COINCIDENCES VS. CONNECTIONS -----
The world is full of random coincidences that, when viewed in
isolation, can support almost any claim we choose. At the same
time, the world is full of real cause-and-effect connections which
we need to understand to get things done. If we trust only our
feelings, we usually choose the theory which gets us off the hook
rather than the one that models the real connections. As we
invest in this theory and build our lives around we find it harder
and harder to accept any other. When real-world evidence
conflicts with our vested opinions, we may be forced to come up
with increasingly elaborate explanations to reconcile them. Our
theory, we feel, must be right, so the evidence must be wrong.
Disabling the evidence is the job of paranoia. It allows us to
interpret any damaging data as a reflection not on us or our
decisions but on some powerful outside force we are not
responsible for. Our bad report card must be the work of our
scheming teachers. Our low-paying job and lack of social status
must represent a deliberate plan by the government to humiliate us
and neutralize our power. "They" are growing in power even as we
grow weaker. They want to destroy us, but we remain defiant and
will not be broken. We can see through their plans to poison our
water and steal our dignity. Against all odds, we will keep up
the fight and at least save ourselves and our family.
"When I child grows up thinking this is a kind, sensible,
nurturing world, 'tis a rude awakening at the first betrayal..."
Baby Joseph makes us sad. He may be betrayed, but by whom? Which
is worse: the crimes and injustices of the priesthood or his
father trying to protect him from them?
===== INPUT INVITED =====
We invite our readers to send us ideas and questions for future
editions of this newsletter. We are interested in real-world
examples of paranoia; if you see any in print or have experiences
of your own you wish to share, please pass them along to us. We
have already grown tired of most conspiracy theories; what
interests us are stories that convey not just an unusual theory
but also some hints as to what the motivation might be.
Send comments to [email protected], or write to us at the address
below.
===== SUBSCRIPTION AND COPYRIGHT INFO =====
© Glenn Campbell, 1994.
The contents of this on-line newsletter are copyrighted and may
not be reproduced in any form without permission, EXCEPT FOR THE
FOLLOWING: For one year following the date of publication, you
may photocopy this text or post or send this document
electronically to anyone who you think might be interested,
provided you do it without charge. You may only copy or send this
document in its entirety, not as partial excerpts. After one
year, no further reproduction of this document is allowed without
permission. (Extension of the one-year limit, if allowed, may be
printed in future editions of this newsletter.) Brief, properly
attributed excerpts may be quoted at any time for review purposes.
This newsletter is published on an irregular basis whenever we can
think of something to say. Email subscriptions are available free
of charge to any internet user. To subscribe (or unsubscribe) to
future editions of THE PARANOID NEWS, send a message to
[email protected]. Hard copy back issues and subscriptions to
this newsletter are available for $1.50 per issue, ordered from
the address below. (e.g. $15 for the next 10 issues, mailed
anywhere in the world.)
Also published by Psychospy: THE GROOM LAKE DESERT RAT, a
newsletter concerning Nevada's top secret "Area 51," reputed home
of UFOs, advanced aircraft and many evil conspiracies. A free
catalog of other publications regarding government secrecy (and,
by extension, government paranoia) is available upon request.
Our US mail address is:
HCR Box 38
Rachel, NV 89001
#####
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
