The Official narrative of an event is the story told about it by the establishment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Wikipedia has no page on this important topic - the closest it comes is a generic page about cover-ups
- 1 Official Narrative
- 2 Official opposition narratives
- 3 Usage on Wikispooks
- 4 "Fringe theories"
- 5 Fabrication by The Establishment
- 6 Examples
- 7 Related Documents
- 8 Related Quotation
- 9 References
The official narrative about official narratives is that this is while not necessarily the whole truth, certainly a large part of it and are mistakes are due to accidental oversight or lack of evidence rather than deliberate mendacity. While other narratives are inevitably tainted by the suspicion of self-interest, the authorities are deemed creditworthy - in the establishment's view - by their 'official' nature (and imputed track record of reliability).
The official narrative, like any other narrative is a human creation, and as such may be just as susceptible to human failings, bias, lack of integrity or other such shortcoming as any personal accounts. From the "white man's burden" to "Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction", history is littered with official narratives which were abandoned either because their mendacity was exposed or simply because they had served their purpose and were no longer needed. If the official narratives of yesteryear were packed with self-serving lies, is it reasonable to expect (far less, as the establishment would have it, assume) that the official narratives of the modern day are any less mendacious?
Official narratives are sometimes changed at short notice, and sometimes demonstrably at odds with the facts. For example, the 9/11 Commission report that states that nobody heard explosions in the World Trade Center, ignoring the testimony of dozens of witnesses such as the late Barry Jennings. They are very often inconsistent and/or incomplete (the Commission's first report completely failed to mention WTC7).
Official narratives often lack explicative power and often take a 'lowest common denominator' approach - i.e. By trivializing complex issues they fail to respect the subtleties of the matter at hand. (Who did 9/11?.. "Al-Qaeda, the evil doers". Why?... "Because they hate us." Why?... "Because we're free.") Their lack of subtlety and explicative power means that they increasingly end up as self-referencing faits accomplis, which could be instantly unmasked by a population of critical thinkers. This explains the importance of the commercially-controlled media to the modern deep state.
For a few special topics, official narratives are of such central importance and/or so lacking in credibility that they are buttressed by national law. An outstanding example is provided by The Holocaust; in much of Western Europe, expansive claims of "free speech" notwithstanding, the establishment imprisons those who question this official narrative, terming them "Holocaust Deniers" not for denying but merely questioning the historical record. The Thai constitution states that "No person shall expose the king [of Thailand] to any sort of accusation or action". 478 people were charged there in 2010 with this crime, termed "Lèse majesté".
By the usual definition (the recorded verdict of the "official" establishment body) the assassination of Martin Luther King has been, after the 1999 successful civil trial by William Pepper, in which a jury unanimously decided that Loyd Jowers conspired with unnamed (US) "governmental agencies" to kill King, demonstrably at odds with the idea of authorities as benevolent and reliable. For this reason, the trial was subject to a partial news blackout by the commercially-controlled media. Wikipedia steadfastly refuses to follow its own policy on this point - preferring instead a set of unsubstantiated allegations that the legal process was "corrupted".
Especially since 9/11, increasingly organised crowd-sourced efforts (such as this website) are scrutinising official narratives and are successful in undermining their credibility. One ongoing response to such beviour is to attempt to suppress it through casting aspersions about those who carry out such analysis (e.g. labelling as "Conspiracy theorists") another is to ramp up censorship, refusing FOIA Requests and issue less and less by way of official explanations, citing "national security" concerns as an excuse for a culture of secrecy.
Official opposition narratives
- Full article: Official opposition narrative
- Full article: Official opposition narrative
Official opposition narratives are establishment approved stories that run counter the official narrative in an approved fashion. Their main purpose is to frame a range of establishment acceptable opinion, allowing for vigorous debate in corporate media. This provides the appearance of real debate even while controlling the outcome -- in a similar way to that in which party politics provides a front to conceal the deep politics.
Usage on Wikispooks
Many Wikispooks pages begin with an Official Narrative section. This reflects not a high degree of credibility in the official narrative, but rather the fact that:
- Most events have a certain number of indisputable facts which are generally accounted for by the official narrative
- Repetition by government schools and/or the commercially-controlled media means that many readers are more familiar with this perspective than any other
The official narrative serves as a starting point for the ensuing discussion, just as an introductory "Background" section often sets the scene for articles about people by giving some basic facts. Most "official narrative" sections (as on this page) have a "Problems" subsection which highlights some key weaknesses of the official narrative, whether in terms of its internal coherence and implausibility or in terms of its failure to sufficiently explain observed reality.
The opposite to an "official narrative is termed by Wikipedia a "fringe theory", an idea too at odds with the official narrative to be worth contemplating. Wikipedia uses this label as an excuse for censorship. For example, the evidence that nanothermite explosives brought down the World Trade Center, although published in a peer reviewed scientific journal - by Wikipedia's own policy, a strong indication of reliability - is apparently invalidated by addition of the "fringe theory" label.
Fabrication by The Establishment
“There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing, the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as wars, revolutions, scandals, assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events. By definition events can NEVER be the result of a conspiracy, they can never result from premeditated planned group action. An excellent example is the Kennedy assassination when, within 9 hours of the Dallas tragedy, TV networks announced the shooting was NOT a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that a negative proposition can never be proven, and that the investigation had barely begun. Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent.”
Anthony Sutton (2002) - 
The spinning of official narratives by the establishment is a routine activity. This process is often the (completely sincere) routine work from officials who prepare press releases or public statements, later edited or soundbyted by those who control big media for their own purposes. Conscious deception is surely involved in some cases, but creating official narratives is not necessarily indicative of venality; the majority are probably handled routinely by employees who have this responsibility precisely because their perspectives are sufficiently limited by the regulating group mind that they can be relied upon to create establishment friendly interpretations.
"Investigations" as cover-up tools
For particularly dramatic deep events such as the 9/11 attacks or the JFK Assassination sometimes one or more "official" investigations are carried out ostensibly to uncover the truth, but in practice more to diffuse discontent and public suspicion and to actually cover up the truth by working out a solid enough alternative version of events, one from which establishment wrongoing has been expurgated and so can be safely promulgated by the commercially-controlled media.
- Full article: Censorship
- Full article: Censorship
Censorship may indicate a duplicitous official narrative. For example, after it was shown on TV on September 11th, 2001, the collapse of WTC7 - in stark contrast to WTC1 & WTC2 - was not broadcast on commercially-controlled media for several years. Where no plausible official narrative can be concocted, this is generally preferred - so where censorship is evident, this may suggest malfeasance.
Another, albeit perhaps rare, motive for censorship is that an official narrative poses a clear challenge to the establishment. The best example of this is the 1999 verdict that the US government was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate MLK. Dramatic underreporting of this event by the commercially-controlled media has meant that most US citizens are still completely unaware of this fact.
The speed of concoction of the official narratives is sometimes revealingly fast. On September 11th, 2001, after a supposed surprise arrack and a series of unprecedented structural collapses the former was being attributed to Al Qaeda and tge latter to fire within a matter of hours. Timing can even defy logic - the BBC and Fox News notably announced the WTC7 collapse before it actually happened.
|9-11/Commission/Report||report||22 July 2004||9-11/Commission||An official narrative crafted to deceive the ignorant, which highlights the roles of Al Qaeda and the 19 hijackers.|
|File:Cass sunstein conspiracies.pdf||paper||15 January 2008||Cass Sunstein|
|"Conspiracy theory"||A classic Official Narrative-type exposition of Conspiracy theory and Conspiracy Theorists with recommendations on how governments should deal with them. It is the principal source of the now widely-used expression "Cognitive Infiltration"|
|Lockerbie Bombing/Official Narrative||The Official Narrative about the Lockerbie bombing was presented by former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd on 28 August 2001.|
|Document:Pilgrims Society Address 2002||speech||28 November 2002||Richard Boucher||Full of platitudes and the obligatory quotations from politicians past to bolster and confirm the essential righteousness of the Pilgrims present. Probably a fairly typical address to The London Pilgrims by a US Embassy Official, but hard to read without squirming at the delusional sanctimonious arrogance it exudes.|
|Document:The corporate media’s world of illusions||blog post||11 June 2018||Jonathan Cook||Once one is prepared to step through the door, to discard the old Great Western Narrative script, the new narrative takes its hold because it is so helpful. It actually explains the world, and human behaviour, as it is experienced everywhere.|
|American Historical Association||“During the past one hundred years any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside a pattern established by the American Historical Association and the major foundations with their grantmaking power has been attacked or rejected - not on the basis of any evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of the argument to the so-called Eastern Liberal Establishment and its official historical line.”||Antony C. Sutton||2002|
- High time to concede the Thai king can do wrong, 20 July 2011
- The verdict was reported in the New York Times, which even cited a member of the jury as remarking that "We all thought it was a cut and dried case with the evidence that Mr. Pepper brought to us, that there were a lot of people involved, everyone from the C.I.A., military involvement, and Jowers was involved".
- By the Washington Post and New York Times.
- But not always! Note for example, the official narrative of the collapse of WTC7, that it collapsed due to fire, notwithstanding the fact that no steel framed skyscrapers collapsed from fire before or since.
- America's Secret EstablishmentAmerica's Secret EstablishmentMemorandum Number One, 2002 Edition
|Description||The "Official Narrative" is the cover stor … |
The "Official Narrative" is the cover story of "the powers that be". On Wikispooks this generally means the story intended for citizens of the so-called 'Western Democracies'. This could be the truth, but the term is usually reserved for use in cases in which it departs significantly from the truth (which may be be unclear or completely unknown, cover by a veil of official lies).nknown, cover by a veil of official lies). +
|Display docType||Wikispooks Page +|
|Display image||File:911report_cover_HIGHRES.png +|
|GlossaryDescription||The "Official Narrative" is the cover stor … |
The "Official Narrative" is the cover story of "the powers that be". On Wikispooks this mean the story intended for citizens of the so-called 'Western Democracies'. This could be the truth, but the term is usually used for cases in which it is a veil over something more sinister.it is a veil over something more sinister. +
|Has averageRating||3 +|
|Has fullPageName||Official narrative +|
|Has fullPageNamee||Official_narrative +|
|Has image2||File:911report_cover_HIGHRES.png +|
|Has noRatings||1 +|
|Has objectClass||Concept +|
|Has objectClass2||Concept +|
|Has revisionSize||12,089 +|
|Has revisionUser||Robin +|
|Has wikipediaPage||http://* +|
|Is not stub||true +|
|Has subobject||Official narrative +|