Ralph Peters agrees in his New York Post column today:

"... Each American citizen is conditioned from birth to separate fact from fiction, to handle great volumes of information effectively. We take the rants we read on the 'Net with more than one grain of salt.

Elsewhere, it's different. In information-starved societies, the computer has an iconic power — if it's online, it must be true.

Especially in the Arab homelands, where florid words have always trumped reality, Web sites that make spectacularly outrageous claims are treated as if they are, literally, God's truth ..."

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/30189.htm

"'NET OF HATE: TERROR'S TOOL

By RALPH PETERS

September 13, 2004 -- TWO kinds of "proph ets" are always wrong: Those who predict that America is in decline and those who believe that some new development, whether the end of the Cold War or the brief apparition of Howard Dean, means that the Age of Aquarius is finally at hand.
In the 1990s, the Internet was destined to bring the world together, to the immeasurable benefit of humankind: Once we all were able to communicate cheaply and swiftly across borders and cultures, we would learn to understand and respect each other, to embrace and sing, if not "Kumbaya," at least the latest download of Senegalese pop.

Instead, the 'Net has become the most powerful tool for spreading hatred in history, as well as the home of the two great pornographies, the grotesque porn of the flesh and the even more virulent pornography of hatred.

Yes, hatred also proliferated during the first information revolution, following the invention of movable type for the printing press. But the worst excesses of printing could be managed. Books were tangible items and couldn't disappear down a digital rabbit hole.

Radio and television were each a step forward for propagandists. Even though they were subject to legislation, competition and jamming, radio swiftly became a tool for tyrants and al-Jazeera's TV tirades would be the envy of Goebbels and Co.

But the Internet trumps all previous means of deepening hatred. Cheap to access and subject to endless variations of electronic vagrancy and subterfuge, it's proving ever harder to patrol. Its celebrated anarchy camouflages well-organized bigotry.

Far from bringing together the forces of peace and progress, the 'Net has become the perfect realm for monsters in search of victims. In the past, aberrant human beings were isolated from one another, living in shame and fear, whether we speak of village pederasts or potential terrorists. Thanks to the 'Net, they've learned that they're not alone, that there are millions of similarly diseased minds around the world.

Today the bigots and perverts of the world are all but unionized. The 'Net has built communities, all right — communities of hatred. (When was the last time you were spammed by Quakers?)

Of course, the Internet has become a great convenience to us. Within minutes, I can comparison shop for a rare book published in the 1790s. I can keep in touch with far-flung friends at a stunningly low cost. I can read a wide range of newspapers and magazines online, or find out what Americans think who aren't part of the traditional publishing aristocracy.

The 'Net isn't going to go away, and we wouldn't want it to. So we might as well make the best of it. And we will: Each American citizen is conditioned from birth to separate fact from fiction, to handle great volumes of information effectively. We take the rants we read on the 'Net with more than one grain of salt.

Elsewhere, it's different. In information-starved societies, the computer has an iconic power — if it's online, it must be true.

Especially in the Arab homelands, where florid words have always trumped reality, Web sites that make spectacularly outrageous claims are treated as if they are, literally, God's truth.

In the Middle East, people believe what they want to believe to a far greater degree than the silliest American. The intellectual conditioning at work is fundamentally different. Above all, the masses want to hear that their failures are not their fault, that Israel and America, the Crusaders and the Jews, are guilty of keeping Muslims impoverished, powerless and backward.

No matter that their own failed traditions and corrupt governments have done these things to Muslims. The culture of blame has conquered the Middle East. The Internet feeds that culture an athlete's diet.

On the 'Net, a photo of a bleeding Arab child takes on the identity terror's Webmasters assign it. The child may have been injured by the terrorists themselves. But on the Web, the child is "indisputably" a victim of America or Israel.

Islamic terrorists inhabit a virtual empire more elusive than the al-Qaeda remnants in rural Pakistan. Extremists discovered that the Web offers the easiest, safest way to stay in touch. On Islamic Web sites, they've created a mad illusion of success, a virtual world in which all of the West's setbacks are exaggerated and the slightest terrorist action is magnified into a triumph.

Terrorist "martyrs" find eternal life on the Internet, not among the dark-eyed virgins of Paradise. We are at war in the digital sphere as surely as on any physical battlefield.

Above all, the 'Net empowers the weak and cowardly, inviting them to join an imagined community of supermen. Communicating on the 'Net, each pathetic Nietzsche believes himself in the company of giants. The imagination supplies a more powerful identity to the being on the other keyboard — just as men and women notoriously imagine that their romantic correspondents are far more attractive than they turn out to be.

The Internet releases the human power to fantasize. And a significant portion of humankind isn't dreaming of peace and love, but of asserting their power over others, of demonstrating the superiority of their faith, or simply about revenge. And their fantasies are soon enough transformed into deadly reality.

Leni Riefenstahl's films glorifying Nazi rallies were baby steps in the dissemination of hatred. The 'Net has proven far more seductive than Hitler at a microphone. Islamic terrorists — and bigots everywhere — have never been granted a more effective tool.

Today, the terrorists are building their virtual concentration camps. Tomorrow, they'll do their best to create real ones."

By the way, the freepers were way behind the times. By Feb. 3rd the sci.space.* newsgroups had already compiled a very extensive Columbia Loss FAQ .

We're really not talking about any new concepts here. Rather (no pun intended), we're applying market concepts to news and analysis. Just as with price discovery mechanism of financial instruments, the group wisdom is greater than individual wisdom.

The dominant media used to be our "truth discovery" mechanism. And just as technology allowed greater participation in financial markets by ever growing numbers, technology has allowed an ever greater number of participants in the truth discovery mechanism. Instead of getting our truth model handed down to us by the media priests like Dan Rather, the masses are discovering the truth on our own. And the priests don't like it. The monopolistic model that favors the priests is being replaced by a truly competitive market.

As participation in financial markets increased, financial markets became more efficient. Likewise, as participation in truth markets increases, truth markets will become more efficient.

I bet there is a solid Ph.D. thesis to be made regarding the concept of a truth market.

But, Trent, is this really all bad things?

"All the wider net of Internet communications does is reinforce group delusion."

I don't know that it reinforces group delusions as much as it enforces common cause. There are really good groups out there (Winds is one!) that are like self-organizing systems, specialized think tanks that proccess information.

The bad guys would coalesce anyways. As the ever brilliant praktike says, "Like emo fans." They find each other. :)

I'm sure there are econometric models and information theoretic models, but "the group mind" seems very organic to me. It is very like neural nets.

Andrew Sullivan has a column on the New Republic site on this subject:

https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=fisking&s=sullivan091404

It works best with issues of reality based objective truth and people who accept there is such a thing as "objective truth." The more scientific or objectively technical the issue is, the better.

I can accept that objective truth exists, while at the same time realizing that many (most?) questions do not have conclusive answers. Indeed, you point out the very limitation of this argument in the second sentence in the above quoted text.

The Anglosphere, of all the cultures on the planet, values the content of objective truth over the credentials of the speaker more than any other.

Can this claim be substantiated?

That is why it is pulling away from the rest of the planet economically, scientifically and militarily.

So the US is pulling away from China (China is predicted to be the world's largest economy in what, thirty years - indeed, when the Chinese economy coughs these days, people notice)? Or India? Is Britain is pulling away from France (keep in mind that Britain played catch-up to France for most of the post-WWII era, and they have now drawn relatively even GDP-wise in recent years)? Indeed, with regard to the issue of "science," its become abundantly clear in the past decade that its Asia which is getting the upper-hand (e.g., in numbers of doctorates produced, in creation of patentable items, etc.). There was a great article some time ago in the IHT about the rising dominance of Asia in basic and applied science. As far as the military is concerned, keep in mind that despite its military might, the U.S. cannot apparently stop a fairly cheaply run insurgency in Iraq.

It is why historically dissenter Protestant faith dominated nations whupped Catholic nations in Europe.

This is a rather questionable conclusion. In the ebb and flow of European affairs during the Reformation and counter-Reformation as many Catholic states whupped up on Protestants, as vice versa; for example, see Louis XIII's campaigns against the Huguenots. And of course, Catholic France took most of Europe during the reign of Louis XIV to defeat it, and of course the same is true again for Catholic France during the reign of Napoleon. You will also find that Catholics such as Sobeiski from Poland were instrumental in saving Europe from the Turks when Protestant German armies could not blunt their efforts. Of course these examples are anecdotal (as historical analysis tends to be), but they are more than you've provided.

It was a virtuous cycle that had better information lead to better decision making that lead to stronger Protestant economies and militaries. That lead to the Catholics losing to the Protestants.

Catholics beat Protestant armies as much as they lost to them; and Protestants and Catholics were intimately involved in the rationalism, etc., that were intimately part of both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment (indeed, its hard to think of the Enlightenment without thinking of, well, Catholic France and Calvinist Scotland).

I think its kind of funny how they let you get away with bigoted Catholic bashing.

"... Each American citizen is conditioned from birth to separate fact from fiction, to handle great volumes of information effectively. We take the rants we read on the 'Net with more than one grain of salt."

This explains why so many people get snoockered by urban legends like the fabled "e-mail" tax, or the Neiman-Marcus (or Macy's, etc.) cookie (or cake, etc.) e-mail, etc. Indeed, outright scams abound on the internet, and amazing numbers of Americans get involved in them (the Nigerian e-mail scam is a perfect example of this).

It also explains why over 50% of the American population apparently believes in ESP, or 50% of the US population believes in astrology, over 1/3rd believe in ghosts, and 6%-20% of the American population believes that the moon landings were faked (that dishonest Fox "documentary" on the matter was a nightmare for teachers I am told), etc. In other words, a large fraction of US citizens say they believe in some aspect of the "paranormal" and other scientifically foundless ideas. For more see generally the website for the Skeptical Inquirer.

Trent,
The concept, and the proof thereof are several hundred years old. In the early decades of the 19th Century American society went through a world shaping change.
Much to the 18th Century Founders', both Federalist and Republican, chagrin their whole concept of the "superior man" led Republic disappeared in the chaos of 'public opinion", wherein every man's opinion, regardless of station, was equal and the result of the whole of these opinions was the National good.
I have to credit Gordon Wood and his "Radicalism of the American Revolution" for this insight.
I'm certain you've read, as have most readers of WoC, but if not, hie thee off to thy nearest booksellers and acquire.
Mike Daley

The blogosphere has powerful historical antecedents.

In the 11th and 12th Centuries 'knowledge' and education were largely controlled by the church, which for some time had drifted into decadence. Small groups of independent scholars, using Latin as a common language, gathered together to challenge each other and challenge the church system. The groups communicated amongst each other by traveling to the various commercial fairs of the time, or by sending letters to other groups with traveling merchants. It was a primitive (but effective) form of distributed intelligence, and the church never really could adapt.

By the early 13th Century these assorted groups of independent thinkers had become fairly well organized in various towns across Europe. Today we know them as universities. For example, there was informal teaching at Oxford as early as 1096, and by 1214 it had become a chartered university.

In the late 20th Century 'knowledge' and education were largely controlled by academia and the old-line media, which have drifted into a notable decadence of their own. Small groups of independent thinkers, this time using English as a common language, gathered together on the internet to challenge each other and to challenge academia and the old-line media.

Communication and access to information are nearly instantaneous and what took months or years to accomplish in earlier eras can be completed and distributed across the globe in minutes. It is a highly developed form of distributed intelligence, embodying the sort of organised skepticism that enables the hard sciences to discover 'truth.' Both academia and the old-line media seem decidedly unable to adapt.

We don't yet know what will eventually grow out of the blogosphere, but what has happened this summer to the old line media, and particularly this past week to CBS is clearly a tipping point of some historical import.

There are also other important sub-texts developing the same theme as well, for example the burgeoning home school movement. Or the fact that small business now accounts for over 50% of non-government GDP. Or the 629,000 new independent American jobs that were created in July alone, while official payroll figures increased by less than ten percent of that amount.

In many ways we are seeing the growth and development of a Jeffersonian economy (widely distributed small independent businesses) and a Jacksonian foreign policy (no hesitancy to use military force when it is in our interest, while staying out of secondary disputes) in 21st Century America, amplified by a very Madisonian approach to political debate and discourse (wide distribution of essays and commentary by many independent thinkers-- IOW the blogosphere).

How ironic then that the Democrat party which claims both Jefferson and Jackson as its leading founders now continues to cling to the decadent information-control institutions of a previous era while tens of millions of independent thinkers and business people follow Jefferson's advice and go about building new systems that threaten to render completely irrelevant both the Democrat party and the institutions on which it has become so heavily dependent.

In this election year politics is the area that's getting the most attention, but we should not ignore what is going on beneath the radar in education, the economy, and citizens' views on the world.

In many ways we are seeing a reassemblage of the same constellation of distributed (_not_ centralised) intelligence, effort and approach that initially gave rise to American greatness, and both the blogosphere and the larger internet are at the centre of it all.

Mr. Hall,
Obviously you are well versed in the items you detail, however, much to my trepidation, I totally disagree with you on the concept of Jefferson's economy with anything approximating growth or individual advancement or any of the other things we see the American economy creating from the early 19th Century on.

Once again I'm forced to quote Gordon Wood: all from the "Radicalism of the American Revolution";
Page 106'
Jefferson and many Republican idealists "hoped that all yeoman farmers who owned their own land and who depended for their subsistence only on ' their own soil and industry' and not 'on the casualities and caprice of customers' would be independent and free enough of pecuniary temptations and marketplace interests to be virtuous"

Hardly an endorsement of anything save an eternally static status quo, not only in economic growth but of individual advancement.

Page 318;
"some of the old revolutionaries never understood the magic of banking. Jefferson thought that the paper money issued by banks was designed ' to enrich swindleres at the expense of the honest and industrious part of the nation.'
He could not comprehend how 'legerdemain tricks upon paper cona produce as solid a wealth or hard labor in the earth. it is vain for common sense to urge that nothing can produce nothing'"

I cannot imagine any economic growth possible with out paper money. Again, the Republican superior leader argues for the status quo, he and his ilk protecting and leading the subsistance farmers.
As all 18th Century Republicans and Federalists, Jefferson was horrified by the political and economic democratization of America.

Full disclosure, Washington and Hamilton were the two great Founders in my lightly informed opinion. Jefferson, due in large part to his support of the murderous French revolution and its' goals and, to a lesser degree, methods is not very high in my pantheon of American heroes. Take away The Declaration and the Louisiana Purchase/Lewis & Clark Expedition and there's not much there.
Mike Daley

Mr. Haley -- I suspect we do not differ that much. First, by way of full disclosure, I actually am a yeoman farmer in the Jeffersonian tradition. Also, FWIW, Jefferson is a first cousin of mine, obviously removed by several generations.

What I am alluding to is the increasingly dispersed and diversified nature of real growth in the US economy. Since the the wreckage of the 1837-43 Depression--far worse than 1929-37 BTW--growth in the American economy was increasingly concentrated in centralised corporate structures. This trend began to reverse in the mid-1980s and the new dynamism is all in the opposite direction. That is what I mean, more than farmers specifically.

Cousin Thomas, however, was significanly wrong on two counts. "Marketplace interests" are the cornerstone of our retail ag business--what I would do without market feedback, I don't know. Watching customers' purchase trends is what keeps our business nimble. It is that way for nearly all Jeffersonian-style entrepreneurs. For more explanation, check into Austrian-school economics

Secondly, he really missed it with banking issues. We are still trying to straighten things out from his distrust of banks which resulted in a bazillion little independent banks. That is an entirely different discussion, as is the entire matter of fiat paper currency regimes, the consequences of which are only beginning to coalesce in our economy.

Trent,

At what point does it become an echo chamber?

>>All the wider net of Internet communications does is reinforce group delusion<<

If the same talking points keep bouncing from one blog site to another, e.g., Freep -> strategypage -> here -- with the odd refraction into and out of the talk circuit -- then at what point does it become a bunch of people repeating the same thing to each other?

And when do we confuse information with noise? Yes, the blogosphere can be helpful in revealing, say, the shenanigans with those Air Guard memoranda. I might mention that that revelation was a matter of people speaking from their own experience and education. (Something that that rouged mannequin Dan Rather apparently lacks).

Mind you, I've seen reef fish reacting in unison in the wild. I'm not sure I would want to conduct a discourse with them. (Their flakiness wasn't at all a disadvantage in butter and garlic, however).

Mr. Harmon,
It never becomes an echo chamber, just because a preponderance of those blogging will not accept a falsehood, MSM fostered or not, doesn't mean they'll agree on much of anything else.
My G-d, the exposers of Rather run the gamut from right wing to left of center Libertarians, you couldn't find a much broader cross-section of political thought. The fact they all came together to expose a blatant lie by the MSM hardly supports the supposition they operated as a self re-inforcing echo chamber.
The echo chamber symbiolgy would seem to only apply to the Left on the web, who, no matter the facts will continue to advise us that Bush is Hitler and Halliburton stole the election in '00.
Mike Daley