Ron Unz, publisher of the Unz Review and author of the critically important American Pravda series of articles, has argued that the truth movement ought to recognize that its primary enemy is the mainstream media—and strategically work to discredit it by “swarming” its weakest links with alternative perspectives. Rather than limiting themselves to one or two issues—say, 9/11 and JFK— alternative analysts should attack the mainstream line on a wide variety of topics, especially those where the mainstream defenses are weakest. This will entail forging alliances between alternative thinkers whose goals and worldviews are very different from each other.
Recently Ron wrote me to underline the importance of highlighting the best, most mainstream-credible sources and arguments for attacking mainstream positions:
“One other point I should have emphasized is that in lots of these ‘controversial’ matters it’s actually not too difficult to find and quote individuals of very high ‘mainstream’ credibility, or at least who had been in that category before they were ‘purged.’ It’s just that their public views have not been distributed by the MSM or even most of the alternative media.
“For example, I was quite shocked when I discovered years later that the Bill Christison, a former high-ranking CIA official, declared the official 9/11 story ridiculous and wrote a glowing endorsement of one of the first (David Ray) Griffin books. Similarly, you had several radio programs with Alan Hart. Eric Margolis expressed deep skepticism about the 9/11 story and obviously Alan Sabrosky has taken a very public stand. I’m sure there are some others as well. I just think it’s a very bad idea to contaminate the apparent mainstream credibility of these sorts of individuals with people who strike me as crackpots, con-men, or pathological liars.”
Does an equivalent of Gresham’s law apply to the conspiracy world, where bad people and arguments wind up driving out the good ones? Are there too many non-credible “conspiracy” voices using up all the oxygen in the room—especially on YouTube and other popular audio-visual media? If so, what can be done about it?
At the end of the interview, Ron suggests that the alternative world may eventually “win” when the corrupt leadership it has been attacking finally blunders into a world-class disaster—most likely a hugely destructive war and/or economic crunch.