Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies

rated by 0 users
This post has 32 Replies | 6 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 256
Points 5,630
Al_Gore the Idiot Posted: Thu, Oct 18 2012 6:10 AM
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..
 
There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'
 
Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'
 
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
 
Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'
 
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'
 
Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
 
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.
 
Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'
 
Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.
 
Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'
 
Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.
 
Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'
 
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 10:31 AM

Question: Was the above information ultimately copy and pasted from some publication by COINTELPRO?

 

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 11:49 AM

Nice. There is no doubt that the Pentagon and probably other Federal agencies are operating active "information warfare" units that have a presence on Internet forums. How could the government not troll, it's like the biggest IRL troll ever!

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 50
Not Ranked
Female
Posts 45
Points 655
Marissa replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 12:47 PM

Clayton:

Nice. There is no doubt that the Pentagon and probably other Federal agencies are operating active "information warfare" units that have a presence on Internet forums. How could the government not troll, it's like the biggest IRL troll ever!

Clayton -

My tax dollars pay people to play on forums all day long:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

"The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations "without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries".

Centcom spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said: "The technology supports classified blogging activities on foreign-language websites to enable Centcom to counter violent extremist and enemy propaganda outside the US."

He said none of the interventions would be in English, as it would be unlawful to "address US audiences" with such technology, and any English-language use of social media by Centcom was always clearly attributed. The languages in which the interventions are conducted include Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Pashto.

Centcom said it was not targeting any US-based web sites, in English or any other language, and specifically said it was not targeting Facebook or Twitter."

Right, because the government has never done that before:  http://levees.org/personal-attacks-and-lies-posted-to-internet-by-army-corps-of-engineers-about-new-orleans-citizens/

“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

As I was reading the OP, I was laughing as I was imagining these trolling agents as thinking highly of themselves for being so great at what they do. Like, they probably wear headsets with mics as they go on trolling raids. 

 

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 1:46 PM

Hey, it's all about effectiveness on the margin. Ever since 911, the gov has been all over muslim forums, doing serious intel work and lead development, angling themselves into mod positions and much more.

I don't think anyone on the Mises forums is ever likely to become a combatant, much as we may think the us gov illegitimate, due to our commitment generally to the NAP, so, like, w/e man.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 1:55 PM

@ Clayton

Lol,

 

 

Is the Real face of

 

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Neodoxy:

 

uh oh!

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 14
Points 340

I've lurked on these forums for quite some time, and I always get suspicious when someone joins the forums and then immediatly starts asking about "militant" actions or something of that nature. Who thinks like that? Oh, hey, I like the what ideology x is saying. So...when do we blow stuff up?

It's just creepy.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 2:16 PM

they probably wear headsets with mics as they go on trolling raids

This made me laugh so much, I couldn't resist photoshopping it!

Dumbass government trolls.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 2:18 PM

Daniel Muffinburg:

Neodoxy:

 

uh oh!

 

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 5:15 PM

 

When Clayton finally exposed himself, the truth finally become clear.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 7:16 PM
The sliding/spamming thing happens on alt news sites all the time. Anytime something new happens in, say gunwalker, for instance, youll get a dozen articles on the poles shifting, they found bigfoots body, fema concentration camps with s&m dungeons, the works.

hey does anybody know about the social media monitoring software that is supposed to track aggregated emotions? Like supposedly they predicted the revolution in egypt by a spike in the percentage of negative adjectives or whatever:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14841018

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 7:53 PM

@Malachi: I think these analysis ideas are poppycock. They ignore two key things - 1) the most valuable facts - in terms of predicting the future - are locked inside the mind of the decision-maker alone until the moment he or she makes the decision and 2) most information is copy/paste, that is, the Internet is a giant echo-chamber. Also, the Egyptian "revolution" was not. The regime was toppled by foreign intelligence, I think mostly Mossad but likely CIA, MI6 and even French foreign intelligence were involved.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 8:08 PM
Agree on all your points. What if you confined your analysis to social media, filtered for original comments (and not articles or quotes) and tried to aggregate sentiment? Would you be able to track an emotional recession? I mean, if youre in a crowd and people get angry, you dont have to have the valuable facts inside their heads in order to figure out that they're angry, the volume and tone of voice could be sufficient. Well replace tone of voice with certain words, and replace volume with frequency. Useless or no?
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 432
Points 6,740
Groucho replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 8:22 PM

The funny thing about the Egyptian uprising is apparently many people "on the street" knew of it well in advance. I used to work with a fellow who owned a factory in Egypt, and he told me that several days before it began the doorman at his hotel there told him it was good he was departing for the US that day because "big things" were about to happen. My acquaintance asked him "what things"? And the man just smiled and said "big things - good things" and wished him a safe trip.

The Keystone Kops in our intelligence agencies were of course "totally surprised."

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

I think this is appropriate:

Anyways...

Hey guys, what is austrian economics? Do you have a meeting? At what time? Who goes? What is monetary policy? What are the goals of the austrians?

 

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

Also, the Egyptian "revolution" was not. The regime was toppled by foreign intelligence, I think mostly Mossad but likely CIA, MI6 and even French foreign intelligence were involved.

Is it possible to (and I know you don't like this) prove that?  It makes little sense to me that the US would spend 70 billion dollars keeping Mubarak in power and then one day "roll the dice" with al-quaeda.

It seems equally unlikely that Libya was anything more than a roll of the dice, not a coordinateed plan.

Like, when you say "mostly Mossad," what "evidence" do you have to run on?  It seems to me the only connection betwen the US that can be made is through the National Endowment for Democracy...which is not a paramilitary CIA operation, but a State Dept. foreign propaganda network.

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 9:41 PM
I didnt pay much attention to egypt, but youre way off base on libya. Gaddafi was removed from power according to the formula. "They" fomented a disruption using nominally libyan cutouts and funneled terrorists into the breach. Subsequently, at every critical juncture of the war, precision air-strikes and covert ops attacked govt centers of gravity, allowing the terrorists to do the risky, dirty work. This was all a direct result of gaddafi's plan to create the gold african dinar.

did you hear how he died? He was making a run for safe quarters when drone strikes decimated the convoy. Gaddafi escaped his vehicle and his location (after he left the vehicle) was sent to a squad of nato special ops guys. They found him in a ditch, shot him in both legs, and linked up with the nearest rebel unit and told them where to find gaddafi. One-hundred percent deniable, dirty as shit.

Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 9:49 PM

Well, a few things.

The State of Israel considers the Middle East in general their backyard. It's their turf. Egypt, in particular, has been a special target of the State of Israel (think 1948, 1967, 1973, et. al.) and has doubtless been infested with Mossad agents for decades. Hence, if the Egypt "revolution" was an intelligence operation, Mossad would doubtless have been playing the lead role. We know that intelligence operatives were, in fact, on the ground in Egypt and the other Arab Spring countries. For example, we know that Otpor! was involved in all the Arab spring revolutions (the clenched-fist is their trademark). This organization got its start in the Kosovo wars and was a catalyst in the downfall of Milosevic. Modeled on old-fashioned communist revolutionary techniques, Otpor! today has many links to CIA but its origins are unknown. Eastern Europe, again, is an area where Mossad is highly active, so perhaps Otpor! originated in Tel Aviv. 

While Mubarak had CIA ties and Egypt got big bucks from the US in the form of "foreign aid" (second only to Israel), it is ridiculous to suggest that Mubarak and Egypt were merely US puppets or that the primary interest of USG in Egypt is "democracy".

As for Libya, the involvement of Europe/US through NATO aerial interference is blatantly obvious. Hell, French intelligence is said to have been the ones that killed Gaddafi. The film had all the marks of a "mafia hit" meant to make a public example and teach a lesson to unspecified others. Don't threaten to rat on Sarkozy.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

I'm sure that if the Egyptian 'democratizing' was an intellegence game then Israel would be all up in it.  I just don't see that as the case.  Not in Egypt.

Also consider this, we in the US were told that Egypt was some kind of social media revolution, that twitter helped bring so many to the streets...I happen to think that it had to do with wheat prices going up 70% in a few months.  80% of Egypt is illiterate, twitter isn't doing anything for them.

I suspect that Egypt was an aggravated revolution.  Egypt has key US military installations that Libya, Syria, et al didn't.  We saved Mubarak and have tried to use our influence (in whatever forms) to hold control over their military (just as we do everything we can to control the civilian government of Pakistan); shit, we hold whatever we can.  I think "rolling the dice" is a last resort.

And I don't think "killing" bin Laden was a last resort despite the Raymond Davis incident that led to Abbotabod.

While Mubarak had CIA ties and Egypt got big bucks from the US in the form of "foreign aid" (second only to Israel), it is ridiculous to suggest that Mubarak and Egypt were merely US puppets or that the primary interest of USG in Egypt is "democracy".

I never claimed that.  I mentioned that a propaganda front of the state dept. that happens to have that word in the title was in operation there.  I think that it is an intelligence game, but I don't think it is to "install a leader" because that is short term.  I think they (the West) are trying to take over the political parties in any "democracy" that springs up (or that they manage to aaggravaate into existence).  One leader is 70 billion and a plethora of TOP SECRET inforamtion, manipulation of a semi democratic autarchy might seem less stable, but may result in a better grip of the system, especially since after "democratizing" there is always the possibility of open public support of the system..

As for Libya, the involvement of Europe/US through NATO aerial interference is blatantly obvious. Hell, French intelligence is said to have been the ones that killed Gaddafi. The film had all the marks of a "mafia hit" meant to make a public example and teach a lesson to unspecified others. Don't threaten to rat on Sarkozy.

Yes, when I think about that whole deal I've got to think that taking The G-man out of Libya was a last resort.  It was a roll of the dice because we didn't have anything to put in his place.  We hired out and helped two different factions in Libya in a desperate bid to get him.  I also think that the wikileaks drop with all of the dirt on the G-man and Berlusconi, etc. must have pissed him off.  It may have undermined some of his legitimacy and then he called out Sarkozy specifically so Sarkozy paid a little more to have him assassinated.

As for not putting anything in place in Libya...I won't mention who, but they have a reasonable case for the Romney allies within the defense and intelligence apparatus that helped that video as well as the "lack of adequate security" problem that has led to such an embarrassing incident for Obama.  The Western power elite have put their weight behind Romney.  They even have Obama on the debate leash.  Romney is like a rhetorical bulldog and Obama is a bitch in heat ready to get it  rough...

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Thu, Oct 18 2012 11:15 PM

aggravated revolution

OK? The point is that every single country toppled in the Arab Spring was, domestically, in equilibrium in some sense. But part of that equilibrium was the external meddling. Somebody went around the Middle East and "kicked out the supports out" and we watched the whole region come toppling down.

 "killing" bin Laden

Bin Laden was dead by December 2001. "Bin Laden" was killed in Abbottabad - probably one of the CIA body doubles in those shitty "bin Laden" videos released where he changes his mind and takes responsibility for 9/11 after initially denying any involvement. It was time to retire the increasingly absurd Emmanuel Goldstein avatar.

taking The G-man out of Libya was a last resort.  It was a roll of the dice because we didn't have anything to put in his place.

We officially began a long march to "The New American Century" on 9/11/2001. The project had been in the works for decades prior. The invasion of much the Middle East (and destabilization of the rest, except the crown jewels orbiting Saudi Arabia) was planned from the get-go. Watch this.

Of course, I think the neocons themselves are slated to get screwed over in Iran. They've been told that their job is to set up a global empire by conquering the Asian continent. How silly. Of course the neocons aren't going to conquer the Asian continent and set up a global empire. The Elites would never trust them with that kind of work.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

How are you about to link to stuff like that while you call the stuff I point out propaganda?  The Washington Institute?  Having said that, it was decent.

OK? The point is that every single country toppled in the Arab Spring was, domestically, in equilibrium in some sense. But part of that equilibrium was the external meddling. Somebody went around the Middle East and "kicked out the supports out" and we watched the whole region come toppling down.

Aggravated as internal to controlled and external.

Yeah, I think the whole region is still sitting underneath the power structure from the 80s.  The one that changed drastically for the rest of the world in the interim.

Bin Laden was dead by December 2001. "Bin Laden" was killed in Abbottabad - probably one of the CIA body doubles in those shitty "bin Laden" videos released where he changes his mind and takes responsibility for 9/11 after initially denying any involvement. It was time to retire the increasingly absurd Emmanuel Goldstein avatar.

You missed the point of my statement.  Are you familiar with the Raymond Davis incident? 

We "killed"  "Goldstein" in order to give us popular support in the even that Pakistan declare war on us after the Pakistanis captured a CIA operative with dirty reciepts, weapons, and cameras (this not reported by the western media for two months).  It was not last resort, but it was a large permenant psychologically strategic asset that we let go.  Maybe Obama is acting on his own and screwing things up for certain handlers?

We officially began a long march to "The New American Century" on 9/11/2001. The project had been in the works for decades prior. The invasion of much the Middle East (and destabilization of the rest, except the crown jewels orbiting Saudi Arabia) was planned from the get-go. Watch this.

Yes, yes. 

Of course, I think the neocons themselves are slated to get screwed over in Iran. They've been told that their job is to set up a global empire by conquering the Asian continent. How silly. Of course the neocons aren't going to conquer the Asian continent and set up a global empire. The Elites would never trust them with that kind of work.

I don't think the U.S. & NATO will go over as easily as you do...but yes, "rolling the dice" on these countries (in that we don't know if what replaces them is Pro-US or not) is just as dangerous for us (the West) as it is for them (everyone else).

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,485
Points 22,155
Kakugo replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 2:20 AM

Hilarious thread, I love the idea of "Government Trolling Agent". smiley

However there's a thing I don't understand. While the Internet has obviously changed our civilization in many ways, it still fails as mean to organize politics, especially an effective resistance to encroachment on civil rights and individual liberties. While our enlightened overlords would like us to believe the Egyptians used Facebook or Twitter to organize their stillborn revolution, I find hard to believe an oppressive regime as Mubarak's didn't monitor social networks for any sign of dissent, especially considering they were fully backed by the US government which has most Internet companies on a leash.

So why waste time trolling forums frequented by people who have exactly zero chance to influence politics, specially when the Internet is already awash in trolls who will do all the dirty work, and for free?

I am ready to concede social forums chiefly used by young Muslim men are targeted by government operations but that has more to do with the insane clima of paranoia we live in right now than with a real will to "infiltrate" the Internet.

Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,739
Points 60,635
Marko replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 2:26 AM

Is it possible to (and I know you don't like this) prove that?  It makes little sense to me that the US would spend 70 billion dollars keeping Mubarak in power and then one day "roll the dice" with al-quaeda.

It seems equally unlikely that Libya was anything more than a roll of the dice, not a coordinateed plan.

Like, when you say "mostly Mossad," what "evidence" do you have to run on?  It seems to me the only connection betwen the US that can be made is through the National Endowment for Democracy...which is not a paramilitary CIA operation, but a State Dept. foreign propaganda network.



Seconded.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 2:48 AM

So why waste time trolling forums frequented by people who have exactly zero chance to influence politics, specially when the Internet is already awash in trolls who will do all the dirty work, and for free?

If you go browse around on InfoWars, I recall Alex Jones has a bunch of official Pentagon documents that have basically identified the Internet as the "battleground of the 21st century" and they don't mean Denial-of-Service attacks... they mean the information available on the Internet. Whatever trolling the Pentagon (or Langley or whoever, doesn't really matter) does on social media is doubtless work that is done by the lowest-level infowar grunts, but it is definitely work they are interested in. In particular, the Pentagon will want to slow the spread of true information and one way to do this is "jamming". In war zones, old-school jamming is accomplished by transmitting extremely high-power, broadband noise across all radio channels. Radio reception becomes impossible across wide areas as all you can hear is static on every channel. The role of information-warfare agents (yes, this is a real MOS designation) who engage social media is identical: just generate lots of noise. Doesn't really matter what you talk about, so long as it isn't important to the Pentagon for people not to be talking about it and as long as it attracts the attention of lots of people in the particular social medium, thus "squelching" all other discussion.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 256
Points 5,630
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
 
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
 
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
 
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
 
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
 
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
 
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
 
Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.
 
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
 
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
 
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
 
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
 
a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
 
b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
 
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,612
Points 29,515

If you go browse around on InfoWars, I recall Alex Jones has a bunch of official Pentagon documents that have basically identified the Internet as the "battleground of the 21st century" and they don't mean Denial-of-Service attacks... they mean the information available on the Internet. Whatever trolling the Pentagon (or Langley or whoever, doesn't really matter) does on social media is doubtless work that is done by the lowest-level infowar grunts, but it is definitely work they are interested in. In particular, the Pentagon will want to slow the spread of true information and one way to do this is "jamming". In war zones, old-school jamming is accomplished by transmitting extremely high-power, broadband noise across all radio channels. Radio reception becomes impossible across wide areas as all you can hear is static on every channel. The role of information-warfare agents (yes, this is a real MOS designation) who engage social media is identical: just generate lots of noise. Doesn't really matter what you talk about, so long as it isn't important to the Pentagon for people not to be talking about it and as long as it attracts the attention of lots of people in the particular social medium, thus "squelching" all other discussion.

Case and point why we shouldn't call them "chemtrails"...

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Fri, Oct 19 2012 2:23 PM

Al Gore--What's your point?

Do you honestly think the gov is targeting the Mises forums? We, who adhere to the NAP and are not interested in violent overthrow or revolution?

I suppose we're supposed to trust you because you 'invented the internet'? :P

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 256
Points 5,630

LMAO!

I'm just posting some stuff that may be of interest.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,485
Points 22,155
Kakugo replied on Sat, Oct 20 2012 5:58 AM

Clayton, what you say is something I have heard from respectable (meaning no "I was abducted by aliens from Zeta Reticuli who gave me an anal probe and a message for mankind") UFOlogists in the past decades. They squarely pointed the finger towards both "whistleblowers" and "well informed types" like John Lear (who candidly admitted having worked as a pilot for the CIA in Laos): their scope was to generate "static". For what scope I cannot tell since they probably didn't know either.

The big difference is back then you had to put your name on a book or your face in front of a crowd. If you said you were a former USAF captain from Dayton, Ohio, people would go to incredible lengths to see if you were telling the truth about your wereabouts. Now you can work in complete anonimate or even use a false identity (meaning IP address). That's both the blessing and the curse of the Internet.

I also suspect what I saw back in the days was a shape of things to come. Manipulation of the flow of information, "plants", psy-war exercises, terror tactics, "exercises of general synthesis"... they all hinted something sinister was going on but it was all on a small scale. After all we were a small community back in the days. Right now the Internet has well over a billion users.

Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (33 items) | RSS