Dynamic Silence

I have long known this to be the case, in fact, the only reason this and other dissident blogs even exist (including Miles Mathis). From Fakeologist:

This contrasts the usual method of handling legitimate dissidents, by way of “dynamic silence“. Allegedly invented by ADL-B’nai Brith member “rabbi” Abraham Feinberg of the American Jewish Committee in 1947, dynamic silence involves ignoring the dissidents as if they didn’t exist and preventing them from reaching any significant audience exposure, thus, they and their potentially damaging message(s) are contained.

In fact, I read one time that comments could be structured so that only the person writing the comment could see the comment, invisible to everyone else. That’s chilling. I wonder if it is in effect as we speak?

However, censorship is a fact of life. The best means by which censorship can be as effective as it is is if people are not aware of it.

Along those lines, I was once watching the TV series Silicon Valley, which ran from 2014-19, and in one episode there was a great deal of controversy about a new search engine that was being brought into play.  Someone suggested that it might be used to CENSOR THE INTERNET!!! The whole room was in an uproar.

That is either stupid writing, or writers who know to keep the illusion going that our Internet is NOT censored. It is heavily censored. Very little actual truth emerges anywhere, and if it does, there is always dynamic silence to deaden its impact.

I am not OK with it, but have lived with it for so long that I take it for granted.

14 thoughts on “Dynamic Silence”

  1. 100%! FB has been shadow banning for years, and I’ve long suspected it’s been going on in certain substack forums. It may also be designed to insert a like or 2 from a random bot, so the commenter is never completely sure what’s going on. I think if it can be done, it is being done–and there is no reason it couldn’t be done, seems like it would be pretty easy to do, in fact.

    As for MM…I laughed when I read his blurb about how foolish anyone is who questions the virus paradigm. Didn’t even have the balls to make a coherent case for it, or devote an entire post to it. The guy who says everything else is fake, says viruses are real. How is that not hilarious? If you can ignore the profound implications for the future of humanity, that is.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I would have to reread, but IIRC his case was more that “germ theory” has a good case because bacteria and larger microbes are clearly visible and arguably implicated in real, specific illnesses.. while things get a little murkier and more open to fakery at the virus/ electron microscope level.. That would be my guess, that there may be something real to the former, but with the latter they built an elaborate edifice of lies and fakery.. partly (or largely?) helped along by the process of institutional science, where a foundational theory, once assumed as a given, is then elaborated by careerists and stooges who may genuinely believe it. They just interpret all data in the given frame.. confirmation bias blinders on.

      Like

      Reply

    2. Adding.. it always helps with a “big lie” to ground it in some degree of truth.. makes it harder to untangle because we tend to a black or white dualism in our thinking.

      Like

      Reply

    3. “The guy who says everything else is fake, says viruses are real. How is that not hilarious?”
      It is. I always wondered if there is a method behind “everything is fake.”

      Like

      Reply

  2. Re: censorship

    Have you ever had any success “in real life” opening any minds on.. anything? No censorship there! Just the built in self censors people have…

    I can barely get past square one with most people.. just moving one space past the official narratives.. And any ground ever gained, seems to be erased by the next time you see them. But it’s been a long time since I even tried, other than just defending my views if challenged. I think wisdom is in not trying to tear down peoples’ psychological structures and worldviews, unless they’re seeking that.. it’s not very “golden rule.”

    And anyway, I don’t have any final answers to give anyone. I know some things can’t be right, but I can’t give them anything definite to replace it with. “Seeker, seek on” as a podcast I used to listen to advised..

    Like

    Reply

    1. I changed someone’s mind once, around 40 years ago. It took around 3 months of daily argumentative conversations and she later thanked me. She is intelligent and open to change, even so it was not easy. Since then I have not had the occasion to place so much effort into shifting another person’s world view.

      You can’t make them abandon their point of view and adopt yours, you have to expand their point of view slowly, one step at a time. Same goes for your own point of view.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Yes I agree, we generally need to absorb slowly large amounts of data and mull it over, and weigh it over time. Pithy encapsulations are fun, but only work for those who already “know” the perspective. They just bounce off the unknowing, sometimes provoking laughter, anger, incomprehension, etc… At least they may provoke questions which can then gradually lead to shifting perspectives, depending on the person. Or the person may lock into their view and try to show you your error. Turnabout is fair play..

        Sometimes I just try to learn what I can from someone who seems enbubbled in whatever worldview they have (admittedly just from my perspective, but what else can I do.) Whether someone is in a Trump echo chamber, or new York times, etc, I can still see what that bubble thinks, and what the individual thinks from their own personal viewpoint within that bubble.

        Like

        Reply

  4. Mark –
    I have a financial/ accounting type of question, could you please help me understand this?

    Naked capitalism recently ran a piece comparing the effects of inflation on median wealth households vs the top 1%. In their breakdown of assets and liabilities held by these groups, they show that the 1% hold a significant part of their wealth (around 39%) as “business equity” or “unincorporated business equity.”

    Now, I understand this so far as small business owners would be concerned, but presumably the top 1% hold “business equity” in major corporations as well. Or no? The breakdown has a separate category for stocks, at around 25% of assets held by the 1%.

    I looked up business equity, but the explanations are pretty vague and ambiguous – sometimes the same as stock equity, sometimes not. Does it refer to the original equity from the founders of large companies? Is it never sold or traded on any open markets? I don’t even know exactly what questions to ask, not knowing really how that world works. Can you shine any light on this?

    Like

    Reply

    1. I wish. I can only offer a little penlight. The original owners of various companies do not change even as a portion of the stock in that company might be traded publicly. New companies that come about – Microsoft, Apple, Google, trade on technology handed over to them by DARPA or some other agenc(ies) that do the hard work of invention. Chomsky wrote on this topic, long ago, saying the invention and innovation, the real thing, required massive investment without assurance of a return, so that private investors could not shoulder the load. It required public funding. Microsoft and Apple offer the same products that even look alike, and each had a fake “genius” behind them, Jobs and Gates, neither of whom, as I see it, ever wrote a line of computer code.

      In my home state of Montana, we used to suffer from what was labeled “the Copper Collar”. It’s a resource colony, as our friend Steve Kelly knows so well. All of the newspapers in the state were owned by Anaconda Company, the owner of Berkeley Pit. As the pit played out, there was no longer a need for such open censorship as went on, and the newspapers in question were “sold” to Lee Enterprises, who carried on the censorious tradition. In my view, ownership never changed, really. Just the window mannequins.

      Along the same lines, Berkeley Pit was allowed to flood, and is now a very large Superfund site, a public problem as Anaconda is long gone. A second pit opened, and is owned by Dennis Washington, and the name is no surprise. That family still has a major stake in our business world. Dennis also “bought” a portion of railroad that ran through Montana that was managed by Burlington Northern, now called Montana Rail Link.

      Look up a piece called “The Magic Bulldozer” on this blog, about Dennis, that once, not too long after I wrote it, disappeared. A friend of the blog recovered it from Wayback, and I think we still have it.

      That’s all I know about true ownership of publicly traded companies. Just a penlight.

      Like

      Reply

      1. re: “Ownership” See: CAFR (local, state, federal, etc.) It’s all there is b/w.

        “And so, I have compiled this list of just the New York State Retirement Fund’s holdings in Pharmaceuticals, oil companies, the media, and other industries. This is only one out of over 200,000 governments, Federal, state, and local. And if just one single government owns this much in these companies, the answers to the following questions should be as clear as day… government owns and profits from these corporations, and passes the laws which regulate them and to guarantee those profits, regardless of what the public wants. The answer to all questions is simple… it’s just business.

        Why are pharmaceuticals and medical companies out of control and killing people? Why is cancer the number one most profitable business, despite proven cures? Why are vaccines soon to be mandatory without one shred of evidence as to them being medically sound? Why are banks allowed to charge practically unlimited interest despite usury laws? Why are banks allowed to foreclose on millions and millions of homes? Why are banks allowed to ignore state laws in lieu of federal laws? Why are products made in China all over the stinking place? Why are dangerous and poisonous products being imported into America? Why is the American market so saturated with foreign products? Why was Exxon and BP not required to clean up their historical oil spills? Why is oil still being used when such vast and wonderful alternatives are all around us? Why is the media lying and misinforming us at every turn, supporting government in every way?

        All of these questions are answered by this simple realization…

        Government owns it all!!!”

        Government’s Conflict Of Interest

        Like

        Reply

      2. Very interesting, thank you… I actually didn’t think I was asking for any secret information, haha. The NC article is a mainstream economist, and his charts I assume are just from publicly available data. I wonder how he would answer, maybe I’ll try to write him. Will also look up the old post you mention, thanks again.

        Like

        Reply

  6. Steve-
    Thanks, but what do you make of this term “business equity”? See this article here-

    https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/01/why-the-middle-class-benefits-from-inflation.html

    Those big pension funds mentioned in your link would be stock ownership I think, by many regular people.

    The NC piece is about the top 1% (by wealth) of private individuals. Showing they hold 39% of their wealth as “business equity” on average, and 25% as stocks or stock equity.

    And these are mainstream statistics, open source, so presumably there’s something in the real world that opaque term points to.

    Maybe it’s the original equity in some major corporations, that has been passed down via trust funds? Plus, some wealthy small business owners may have 80% of their assets in their business, and that skews the average. I just find it curious. Interesting charts though..

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment