ConspiracyScience.com : A Case Study in Intellectual Inhibition
I am posting this article in the Humanities section for it pertains to Sociology and Psychology. Since I have been stuck in the UK, with only so much I can do, I have been occasionally reviewing the content and social activity on a website called ConspiracyScience.com. The issue I want to address here has nothing to do with the supposed “Debunking” of my films on the website, but rather the tactics, mentality and what I can only classify as a biased based mental illness of its author, Edward L Winston, along the near pathological nature of the rather Anti-TZM community it has fostered. I feel there is a great deal to learn from it in regard to the larger social problem of culturally influenced mental illness by way of memes and the circular reinforcement (feedback loops) that results within self-isolated groups.
In my lecture called Socially Pathology, I expanded this “Mind Lock” phenomenon in regard to how people censor information they receive based on socially contrived mental barriers they put up, which typically comes from assumptions of “normality”, which they have been indoctrinated into.
I think John McMurtry, a Prof. of Philosophy in Canada, put the basic issue well:
“In the last dark age, one can search the inquiries of this era’s preserved of thinkers from Augustine to...Ockham, and fail to discover a single page of criticism of the established social framework, however rationally insupportable feudal bondage, absolute paternalism, divine right of kings and the rest may be. In the current final order, is it so different? ...In such a social order, thought becomes indistinguishable from propaganda...Social consciousness is incarcerated within the role of a kind of ceremonial logic, operating entirely within the received framework of an exhaustively prescribed regulatory apparatus protecting the privileges of the privileged. Methodical censorship triumphs in the guise of scholarly rigor, and the only room left for searching thought becomes the game of competing rationalizations.”
We often think of censorship as a deliberate, conscious act, in an external context. Seldom do people realize that they have conditioned tendencies to censor information they personally receive, for the sake of their own identity. One might call this “Intellectual Inhibition”. Beliefs, and the emotions it creates, are often very difficult to transcend when conflicting information is presented that might challenge or void an existing belief. Such denial can manifest in many ways, often by finding/inventing a “justification” for the bias to prevail.
There are three points I would like to make in this regard:
1)The first we will call
“Ideological Bigotry”- thus loosely defined as the dismissal/denouncing of a person, based on the mere presentation of conclusions which are outside of the other person's preferred reality.
In regard to Edward L Winston and many of the people participating in his community, a very common use of the derogatory term “Conspiracy Theorist” serves as a mantra of 'presupposed rejection' regarding certain forms of information. In other words, anyone who brings up a certain 'type' of information which might be susceptible to this “taboo” category, is often reduced to a “Conspiracy Theorist”.
What this really is, again, is Ideological Bigotry – a form of “opinion racism” if you will. Suddenly anyone who has questions about an historical act, which is contrary to the prevailing view, and beyond some biased, subjective threshold deemed “rational”- is likely just an nutty “Conspiracy Theorist”.
This is a powerful tool, which has been used by political propagandists since the dawn of time. The easiest way to stop people from investigating certain subject matters is to create fear. In a world driven by public image, many people today will not even consider alternative theories to certain events, such as 911 and like, because they simply don't want to be debased as a “Conspiracy Theorist.” This is a perfect tactic of social influence. As far as Edward L Winston, I don't feel he even understands what he is doing. It is a conditioned response. I think he is genuine in his disposition. It is, again, a form of mental illness, just like a racist feels when encountering what they might consider an “inferior” race.
So, if a prominent physicist stands up and claims contrary evidence to the current accepted reality of a certain phenomenon in this context, they are no longer a physicist- they are just a “Conspiracy Theorist”. This is similar to people who question the value of the Capitalist System who are thus denounced as “communists” in a artificial duality... or those who do not believe in god, who must then be “Satanists”, etc. If people are mere “Conspiracy Theorists” since they have different conclusions than the prevailing order in regard to some events, then it is only logical that all those who denounce such ideas be labeled “Coincidence Theorists”! Obviously, that is a joke, but I hope the point is clear.
Again, the best way to control people is to control thought through making “taboos” which, if explored, will demean the person's status. These social memes permeate peoples identity and, just like a racist, they project their biases into their environment, devoid of objective inquiry.
For more on this subject, in part, please see: #6 Does The Zeitgeist Movement support "Conspiracy Theories"?
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/inde...=3&Itemid=100091
2) Point two worthy of noting, has to do with a very common phenomenon of
“Attacking the Messenger”, which is really just a variation of the aforementioned issue. Only this time it is more personal and based on finding some type of association which would serve to discredit a particular person directly. For example, I often hear: “Peter Joseph is just a a “college dropout” with “no credentials” – therefore there is no need to even regard his research in a serious way”.
As far as Con Sci, there is a whole article called “Cost of Movie”, dedicated to convincing the reader that I make tons of money off of the films I made and sell for 5$, as yet another attempt to discredit, this time by way a “red herring” that has nothing to do with anything related to the content of the works in question, or the self-proclaimed purpose of the website. The attack implies that I have stated that I make 'no money' off the films, when, in fact I have publicly talked about the money made and how it is used. To defend myself here for the sake of clarification, I have to survive in the financial system as well and must sell my work to do so. Given I allow my film to be downloaded for free, copied and given away... I have free internet streams of them, and I only charge a fraction of the commercial rate for a dvd, evidently I am still somehow the bad guy. Edward L Winston, choosing to lower himself to such irrational personal attacks, which have nothing to do with the debunking of the content of my film, further shows his presupposed biases and the mental limitation of his ability to be objective. “Attacking the Messenger” is always a dead give away when it comes to a compromised, biased disposition.
Other symptoms of what appear to be a pathological mental illness in this regard, is by creating a means which avoids having to research anything thoroughly. A statement such as 'Acharya S has been discredited by the academic community, therefore we don't have to followup on her sources.' is another variation.
As a case in point, Edward L Winston, in regard to his supposed refutation of the “Companion Guide” for Part 1 of Z1, states two things which reveal his bias:
He states:
“I have been getting many complaints from people who claim that I did not read the Companion Guide, so therefore I cannot debate the movie. My first argument against that is I was debating the facts in the movie, which does not include whatever is written in an e-book by another author.”
What is really being stated here is: “I refuse to research anything in regard to the sources of this information.”
You cannot debunk anything without reviewing the foundational info it was derived from, especially if it is a film which presents nothing more than a surface summery. Also, Acharya was the consultant for the first part and therefore a partial author.
Beyond the admission of an inherent dis-interest to 'get to the bottom' of the source for the work in question, the “refutation” he then does proceed with, which is based on a document that is 48 pages, with dozens of independent sources he would be inclined to review if there was any trace of scholarly vigor, ends up consisting of about 1 page, with only about 15, 7-10 line paragraphs with virtually no critical examination, only surface statements and dismissal. Since this document was created explicitly to support the quick general statements in Z1 Part 1, this laziness by way of a “denial of relevance” is profound.
He 'justifies' by stating:
“The problem is that she overloads readers with so much information, that it is hard to weed out what to believe and what not to believe, so naturally some people would just assume she knows what she's talking about. She's a liar, end of story.”
Too much information? This is an even more profound form of mental blocking, where the task of review is not met with the initiative, so the act is outright dismissed by way of excuse. In this case, there is “too much” to review. Too much what... EVIDENCE? As far as “She's a liar, end of story” it once again proves the presupposed, highly biased disposition - hence mental illness - and thus rationalized refusal to follow up and evaluate the dozens of independent sources presented within the text's documentation.
3)Now, Edward L Winston aside, the final point to be made, which has been brought to my attention too many times at this stage, is the
“Red Herring Angle” used by many of the members of his forum, which transfers their biases in regard to the sections on “Conspiracy” in my early film, to The Zeitgeist Movement itself, often saying something like “they are all just a bunch of conspiracy theorists at the TZM”. There is no critical examination of any of my lectures, no critical examination of our 90 page Orientation Guide, etc. Nothing. It is dismissal by association in a profoundly biased way... which is yet another form of psychological denial.
In my research through the forum, I could not find one tangible criticism of our work in regard to a RBE - only surface attacks based on the three issues I have presented here.
Once again, please note that this isnt as much about the published content of the site itself and its direct attacks towards me and TZM... My concern here is really the cultural phenomenon of “mind lock” and the large scale mental illness which continues to stifle new information and hence intellectual growth. It is really quiet scary when you think about it, and it goes to show what an uphill battle something like The Zeitgeist Movement has to contend with.
In the end, the merit of any idea should be based on the evidence available, scientifically analyzed in an objective way... not dismissed/clouded because the idea is contrary to the traditional, prevailing world views and values. If no one ever challenged anything the established orders decreed as the sole truth, people would still believe the world was flat. The “Intellectual Inhibition” occurring in society is likely the number one barrier we have in presenting our case for RBE. Human beings are not rational, sadly, so I hope everyone understands what we mean when we say that education is the number one priority.
need to have your work examined by other scientists in the field. That is to prevent belief-based systems to enter the realm of science. 
