Subtle trolling example?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Get smart, Hugh.
I only bite if you put your hand in my mouth.
I also didn't say what you say I did. If you think what I did say applies to you, thats not my problem.

Thanks for the clarification and correction.
Sorry if I misunderstood you and thus misrepresented you.

[compared2what?]

.....
It's almost like you're beginning to remind me of someone. I just can't think...

hue

Oh, puh-leeze. Tacky.
It's looking like professorpan's pal, Zap, is getting traction with his anti-HMW campaign. Zap whipped up a 'HMW is sockpuppeting' theme in post after post and now Penguin and c2w have bit. That's why trolls troll. They win a few and sow discord.
on edit: I just reviewed Rusty Shackleford's posts and see he's trying to decode meaning in movies. And not very well, sorry, although I encourage approaching the subject. It's absurd to assume that every username that has a go at movie subtext is secretly me. geez.

Remember the op?
I answered that there is a ban on domestic propaganda in Smith-Mundt.
And that I wished it were enforced.

That was the OP in another thread, actually. justdrew asked what laws might be broken by the right-wing-hate machine, which you had answered by saying, "The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 which banned propagandizing the American public while authorizing propaganda for foreign audiences."

c2w turned this around into my wishing there were a global US propaganda program.

No. I responded by pointing out, non-confrontationally, that Smith Mundt is and always has been unenforceable owing to, inter alia, the fact that it doesn't have any enforcement provisions. Also that it was technologically obsolete. And that it didn't actually ban propagandizing the American public. Rather, it prohibited access by the American public to Smith Mundt propaganda materials designed for foreign audiences for which their tax dollars were paying. And also that contrary to the suggestion implicit in your confident assertion that...

A right-wing psyoperator named J. Michael Waller has been advising the White House and making the case that only the State Department is beholden to the Smith-Mundt Act but the Pentagon is suited for "fighting the war of ideas like a real war." As in, psyops for Americans from DIA.

....it did only apply to the State Department. Specifically, it applied to propaganda materials prepared for foreign audiences by the now-defunct United States Information Agency. It therefore never has and still doesn't do anything to protect the American public from government propaganda that's aimed at the American public.

After I'd explained this twice, to which you'd responded, in part....

Of course Smith-Mundt was an unenforceable palliative, a noble sentiment.
So was the Bill of Rights, for that matter. I'm not naive.

Men with weapons and secret organizational assets operate with impunity.
That's why exposing their mind-fuckery system is so important to creating some cultural friction that brings down the impunity-based atrocity a few clicks.

Damage control and minimization of techno-fascism is the goal, not some unachievable utopia of accountability from men with all the guns, money, drugs, and media.

BTW, Waller describes a model of anti-American foreigners that we should be working off as a model for the US population.

...I replied to your stated wish that Smith Mundt be enforced by saying:

For the last fucking time: If you would love to see Smith Mundt upheld, what you would love to see is the whole world bombarded with American propaganda that Americans aren't supposed to be able to access and examine themselves, although they pay for them. In short: You'd love to see spooks run propaganda operation without having to worry to much about domestic accountability. Please make an effort to grasp this point by reading the damn bill, or stop referring to it.

As you can see, this was not a conflation, nor was it an accusation. It was a very frustrated third attempt to explain to you what you would be wishing for if you were wishing for the enforcement of Smith Mundt, written in the conditional mood.

I pointed at a psyoperator named J. Michael Waller and wished that anti-fascists would get smarter about strategic messaging to demographics.

c2w conflated this into my advocating deception and violence.

Actually, first you described Waller as "a right-wing psyoperator" who was giving the White House implicitly bad advice, although had he been giving the advice as you characterized it, he wouldn't have been doing anything more than understanding Smith Mundt, which you still apparently don't. That really doesn't reflect very well on your frequent representation of yourself as a heroic teller of historic truths, to which you recurred in your first post on the thread you seem to have conflated with this one by writing:

BTW, Penguin. I will tell you this history in detail. professorpan and Zap won't. Dig? 'Nuff said.

You then advocated that the left start learning how to act like the fascist right by using Waller's model for dividing-and-conquering anti-American foreigners -- and btw, "anti-American foreigners"? Whom do you have in mind, exactly, Hugh? -- in the second excerpt already quoted above, with which I disagreed for the reasons outlined on that thread -- which are still, as always, utterly unaddressed by you except, as above, in reframed-as-strawmen terms. My disagreement with and questions to you on that thread are mostly on page three of it, starting here.

After you abandoned the field on page four, the entire dust-up concluded with these words from brainpanhandler:

To the RI board,

Carefully read the last few pages of this thread.

And I think that's excellent advice.

Because why should the board take my word for it any more than they should yours? I mean apart from my word being supported by citations and not handicapped by a long history of misrepresenting other people's views and statements, failing to address questions raised by others about what I've written, of course.

I have to go out. More later.

[JackRiddler]

Operation CHAOS? Operation Mockingbird? COINTELPRO? FEMA? ICE?

I'm not sure what the question is here. But I guess I'll go with: Programs and/or agencies that aren't military and don't operate in accordance with the Army Field Manual for Low Intensity Conflicts.

Yes, it does say that about domestic insurgencies. It also says it does not displace U.S. law. Which does have some procedures for deploying the military domestically that involve public oversight. I wasn't referring to figurative low-intensity conflicts. Either it's a military conflict, or it isn't. If it is, and you have documentation of it, then the FM 100/20 citation is applicable. If it isn't, or you don't have documentation of it, then it's not.

Very simple. Like the basic laws of physics.

Clarification: They might operate by the same doctrine and within the military mindset and modes of organization, regardless of not being themselves military organizations governed by the same text, no? Or not. That would be on anyone making that claim (i.e. not you in this case) to establish in some way, either by demonstrating practices so identical or related that the circumstantial case of a relation (or of a parallel development) becomes vigorous, or by delving into a documentary demonstration of how the ideas and practices were developed, shared and cross-polinated. I've never seen HMW endeavor the latter, however.

Otherwise you must admit that we don't know what emergency doctrines may be active (for example, what does the just-renewed Sept. 14th emergency order activate, contain, conceal or entail as its train - and in whose interpretation in each case?)... Or which entitities may have been appointed or may have parapolitically arrogated to themselves the functions of waging such low-intensity conflict on enemies as they choose to define them (which might include enemies who don't even know it). In fact, entities such as the Congress (ha ha) or even the CIA head office at Langley might not know very much about that, and it's likely there are multiple "Secret Teams" who have no idea what others are doing, or how others may have redefined their missions.

It's what you'd expect in the multipolar, rich parapolitical realm that we know from some examples (like COINTELPRO, the "Enterprise" and assassination politics) often substitutes for an actual constitutional republic, even as the latter continues to exist and determine large swathes of what we take to be real (as you are right to stress). What you'd expect, but cannot see. Which is why I call it the dark matter. (We posit that the dark matter must be there based on our lack of an explanation for the shape of galaxies without it. In this case, we have the known macro evidence of the mil/intel black budget and 2/3 of it going into private commercial entitities free to pursue other business, plus the known fact that a variety of government agencies and corporations give cover to spook activities by other agencies and actors, and this is even considered a necessity of "defense.")

Anyway, looking over this clusterfuck of a thread prompted these thoughts of a more theoretical nature (in the best sense of theory, I hope!). Thanks.

.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I asked "HMW" months ago about that manual being foreign and Army, and this was, of course, ignored.

Got it now? No, not just foreign targets.
Both FM33-1 and FM100-20 mention psyops for all - enemy, neutral, friendly, and own military and civilians.

But jeez, somehow I also missed the part where the Army, in its low intensity foreign conflicts, was taking over pop culture, hiring actors with similar names to obscure figures, doctoring bell-shaped lens flares into movies, creating six-sided pentagons in the eyes of melting puppets, etc etc ad nauseum.

Guess you did miss it. All branches of military plus State Department and even the UN have had their hand on the lens.

Start with WWII and OWI's Bureau of Motion Pictures.
Then see 'CIA.'
Try starting with the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Then the Paramount Studio CIA mole letters to hq in 1953.
There's one helluva lot of open source stuff even before a discerning eye sees the stuff not in a book.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I encourage you to reread the post you responded to, c2w.
I tried to reduce my frustration and increase my information.
But you responded to my first draft. Oh well.

.....
You then advocated that the left start learning how to act like the fascist right by using Waller's model for dividing-and-conquering anti-American foreigners -- and btw, "anti-American foreigners"? Whom do you have in mind, exactly, Hugh?
.....

Clarifying Smith-Mundt? Done. I want the US to not be psyoped and don't expect that to ever be the case. Move on.

Your characterization of my post about Waller is absurd. Completely wrong.

Saying that I'm advocating "acting like the fascist right" is simplistic and really almost willful distortion, perhaps a combination of choosing to 'misunderstand' combined with your recent tendency to go for my throat instead of discussing. This started over Prouty and hasn't stopped.

And my Waller comment was in yet another multi-page thread with "troll" in the title. There were like three of them. I almost couldn't find it.
People accusing others of 'running away' or 'ducking out' should stop it.
There's a life off this board and I don't live here anymore nor expect others to. This board is cursed with petty interpersonal shit that is a waste of bandwith. I've taken my energies elsewhere.

When I cited Waller's ilk I wrote about the need for STRATEGIZING on the Left, not rote copying of worst behaviors DUH-

BTW, Waller describes a model of anti-American foreigners that we should be working off as a model for the US population.

He describes concentric rings of less ideologically committed demographics around a center of hardcore unchangeable fanatical terrorists. He describes methods of wedging each ring away from the center to defeat the social mechanisms of the committed taking the uncommitted along for a ride.

This is the kind of strategizing the Left needs to steal from the fascist Right.
It is imperative that we learn what we are up against by reading up on fascist technology.

If you and I had never crossed paths, I could understand your misunderstanding and adopting your narrowed-eye righteousness of 'say what?'

But I've spent tons of energy decrying right wing psyops deceit and violence and warning that we are under an organized cultural assault.
AND...YOU...KNOW...IT.

So I think you're being snotty and pedantic about this to satisfy some ego agenda by using me as your punching bag. Whatever I don't nail down you pick up and beat me with. Enough pro-wrestling, ok?

You want to get into where I stand with Waller? GOOD.

Here's a thread from two years ago where I mentioned one of the ugly tactics Waller is pushing as a warning that it will appear on the board and it was being used to promote 9/11 disinfo.

NOTE that two years ago I flagged as a warning that Waller was using Smith-Mundt as a rallying point for military psyoperators. Your contention that we can count on the Pentagon not acting outside the law just because it is printed in their manuals is naive at best. What is like physics is the described social science of social control no matter which alphabet agency does it. By now we should remember the 60s and know that all mil-intel operates domestically despite any laws.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=12997
USG psy-ops expert's "secret weapon,RIDICULE"+9/11

>snip<

A U.S. government psy-ops think tank called The Institute of World Politics has geniuses like J. Michael Waller advising that an immediate response to everyone hating Uncle Sam is black propaganda (lies) and *ridicule* of the opposition.

Yes, the 'experts' advise a school yard bully response to opponents of US policies of ineptly waged atrocity.

>snip<

...And that's why USG physics shill Garcia is fantasizing about ripples shattering buildings built like battleships and then strategically withdrawing into the "secret weapon" of *ridicule* about "conspiracy ju-ju" in his latest article below.

Keep in mind that recent papers by U.S. Information Agency-type psy-ops advisors to the USG like J. Michael Waller have recommended using "the secret weapon of *Ridicule*" against both Iraq insurgents and 9/11 truthers.

Waller advises the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and other fascist war orgs represented at this psy-ops thinktank called The Insitute for World Politics loaded with people from CIA, DARPA, Voice of America, American Enterprise Institute, etc.-
http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/default.asp

Here's Waller's paper based on his book of the same title, 'Fighting the War of Ideas Like a Real War,' wherein he points out that the Pentagon is not restrained from using black propaganda (lies) on the American people by the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act, just the State Department is. So he advises the Pentagon's psy-ops special forces to start dropping mind bombs immediately, especially *RIDICULE.*

pdf file Waller paper-
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=2027&paper=2843

Here's Waller on that website for a leading USG psy-ops group called The Institute of World Politics-
http://www.iwp.edu/news/bookID.49/book_detail.asp




See *the secret weapon of ridicule* deployed by Garcia below.
He's following USG orders based on psy-ops warlords like Waller.

Now here's Garcia's dig at Fisk and all conspiracy theorists as superstitious lovers of "ju-ju."--

http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia08272007.html

>snip<

Yes, this a cluster of a thread.
People don't know anything about FM33-1, FM100-20, or the likes of Waller and they SHOULD. Minus the kerfuffle.

[Penguin]

Hugh, you are aware that `kerfuffle` is probably one reason many posters have become frustrated with your posts? That, and scorning the prodding of issues you consider kerfuffle without noticing the similarities between your method of spotting "kwh" in media products, one that you have not laid out as a methodology, instead its seemingly instinctive to you. Those manuals you cite do not provide a methodology either - still you refer to them mostly when your point of view is challenged.

Id like to see your Method Revealed - would that not be most beneficial for everyone wanting to spot thee keywords? You do understand that?

Also, "look at the science" - can you show the scientific system behind spotting the keywords and how you can tell them from simple coincidences? I believe this has been asked before too, and is probably the major beef most have with you.

For context: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 187#287187

.....
My premise in researching this film was that if it really could be proven to have encoded foreknowledge of 9/11, perhaps TBL or other Coen Bros. films or those of other film makers contain such foreknowledge of future events.
.....

Sorry, RS. You've got it backwards.

I've written many times that it is a big mistake to equate the numbers "9.11" with foreknowledge about the events of September 11, 2001.

This is a standard tension device used many times in Hollywood products, the emergency phone number "911" as a subliminal cue.

This is no doubt why the 9/11 perps chose that day, to both ride the memes of the emergency phone number that activates Men In Uniform....AND have it retriggered for the foreseeable future.

This is the same psyops strategizing that I've found in a few hundred CIA-Hollywood movies, the attempt to link a psyops message to an everyday or common cue to retrigger it as often as possible.

But you are correct that pre-priming the mass audience for a crime using disinfotainment is a strategy. I've found a handful of examples but I'm not going to publicize them here and now.

Look, I've got certain information, certain things have come to light, and uh, has it ever occurred to you, man, that given the nature of all this new shit, that, uh, instead of running around blaming me, that this whole thing might just be, not, you know, not just such a simple, but uh--you know?

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... 467#284467

Sorry for the clusterfuck, I couldn't help myself.
Its, uh, like my second name, dude.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
_________________
His mind now misgave him; he began to doubt whether both he and the world around him were not bewitched.

Nicely put, nicely put.

[§ê¢rꆧ]

[ § ]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_dis ... ion_effect

Yes, it's from wiki, but I think it is an interesting article nonetheless, and something I potentially see a lot of here in these discussions of trolls and the like.

The situation is made worse because people are drawn to conflicts, and fire up the popcorn maker keeping these threads going and going and going.

There's a lot to be learnt in these threads but they must be exhausting for the participants.

[ § ] [ § ] [ § ]

Online disinhibition effect

General Concept

The core concept of the online disinhibition effect refers to a loosening (or complete abandonment) of social restrictions and inhibitions that would otherwise be present in normal face-to-face interaction during interactions with others on the Internet.

Because of the loss of inhibition, some users may exhibit benign tendencies; people may become more affectionate, more willing to open up to others, less guarded about their emotions and may speak to others about what they are feeling in an attempt to achieve emotional catharsis. According to Suler[1], this particular occurrence is called benign disinhibition.

With respect to bad behavior, users on the Internet can frequently do or say as they wish without fear of any kind of meaningful reprisal – in most Internet forums, the worst kind of punishment one can receive for bad behavior is usually being banned from a particular site. In practice, however, this serves little use; the person involved can usually circumvent the ban by simply registering another username and continuing the same behavior as before. Suler[1] calls this toxic disinhibition.
Suler names six primary factors behind why people sometimes act radically differently on the internet than when they do in normal face-to-face situations:

You Don't Know Me

Core Concept: Dissociative anonymity

The notion of "You Don't Know Me" comes down to simple anonymity: when you're anonymous, it provides a sense of protection; within the framework of the Internet, this allows the user to move about without any kind of indication of identity or even distinguishing characteristics other than potentially a username. This kind of protection can provide a meaningful release for people in that they feel free to say things they might otherwise be embarrassed to, but by the same token, it also provides an outlet for behaviors that others might term antisocial or harmful.

You Can't See Me

Core Concept: Invisibility

The Internet provides a shield to its users; often all one receives when interacting with another person on the Internet is a username or pseudonym that may or may not have anything to do with the real person behind the keyboard. This allows for misrepresentation of a person's true self; online a male can pose as a female and vice versa, for example. Additionally, the invisibility of the Internet prohibits people from reading standard social cues; small changes in facial expression, tone of voice, aversion of eyes, etc., all have specific connotations in normal face-to-face interaction.

This particular aspect overlaps heavily with anonymity, because the two often share attributes. However, even if one's identity is known and anonymity is removed from the equation, the inability to physically see the person on the other end causes one's inhibitions to be lowered. One can't be physically seen on the Internet, typically – therefore, the need to concern oneself with appearance and tone of voice is dramatically lowered and sometimes absent.

See You Later

Core Concept: Asynchronicity

The asynchronous nature of the Internet can also affect a person's inhibitions. On internet message boards, conversations do not happen in real time; it could be as short as a few minutes to the next post but it could also be an extraordinarily long time as well. Because of this, it's easier for someone to "throw their opinions out" and then leave; a person can make a single post that might be considered very personal, emotionally charged, or inflammatory and then "run away" by simply not logging in again. In this way, the person achieves catharsis by "voicing" their feelings, even if the audience is just as invisible.
However, the asynchronous nature of the Internet also allows a person to more closely examine what they say and to more carefully choose their words; in this manner, someone who might otherwise have difficulty in face-to-face interactions can suddenly seem eloquent and well-mannered when reading message board posts or even in text-chat forums such as IRC or instant messaging.

It's All in My Head

Core Concept: Solipsistic Introjection

Lacking any kind of visual face-to-face cues, the human mind will assign characteristics and traits to a "person" in interactions on the internet. Reading another person's message may insert imagined images of what a person looks like or sounds like into the mind, and mentally assigns an identity to these things. The mind will associate traits to a user according to our own desires, needs, and wishes – traits that the real person might not actually have.
Additionally, this allows fantasies to be played out in the mind, because the user may construct an elaborate system of emotions, memories, and images – inserting the user and the person they are interacting with into a role-play that helps reinforce the "reality" of the person on the other end within the mind of the user.

It's Just a Game

Core Concept: Dissociative Imagination
By combining solipsistic introjection with the imagination, a feeling of escapism is produced – a way to throw off mundane concerns to address a specific need without having to worry about consequences. According to Suler's[1] personal discussion with lawyer Emily Finch (a criminal lawyer studying identity theft in cyberspace), Finch's observation is that people may see cyberspace as a kind of game where the normal rules of everyday interaction don't apply to them. In this way, the user is able to dissociate their online persona from the offline reality, effectively enabling that person to don that persona or shed it whenever they wish simply by logging on or off.

We're Equals

Core Concept: Minimizing Authority

Online, a person's status may not be known to others and often, this lack of hierarchy causes changes in interactions with others. If people can't see the user, others have no way to know if the user is an on-duty police officer, head of state, or some kind of "ordinary" person hanging out in their den on their computer. While real-world status may have a small effect on one's status on the Internet, it rarely has any true bearing. Instead, things such as communication skill, quality of ideas, persistence, and technical ability determine one's status in cyberspace.[1]

Additionally, people can be reluctant to speak their minds in front of an authority figure. Fear of reprisal or disapproval quashes the desire to speak out, and on the Internet, levels of authority that might otherwise be present in real life are often completely absent; this turns what might otherwise be a superior-inferior relationship into a relationship of equals – and people are far more likely to speak their mind to an equal than a superior.

"You're no superior OOC" and "We're just two guys behind a computer screen", expressed by roleplayer Francis Carneglia, are classic examples of this behavior.

In Popular Culture

Popular online comic Penny Arcade describes "John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory," which posits that an otherwise well-adjusted person, given anonymity and a captive audience, can turn into a "total fuckwad," exhibiting antisocial, sociopathic, and even psychopathic behaviors online.

[compared2what?]

.....
It's almost like you're beginning to remind me of someone. I just can't think...

hue

Oh, puh-leeze. Tacky.
It's looking like professorpan's pal, Zap, is getting traction with his anti-HMW campaign. Zap whipped up a 'HMW is sockpuppeting' theme in post after post and now Penguin and c2w have bit. That's why trolls troll. They win a few and sow discord.
on edit: I just reviewed Rusty Shackleford's posts and see he's trying to decode symbolic meaning in movies. That's not the same as psyops though it is a subset. While I encourage approaching the subject, it's absurd to assume that every username that has a go at movie subtext is secretly me. geez.

c2w, I appreciate that you have some academic expertise. That's apparent.

You're very kind to say so. For which please accept my appreciation. But I'd kind of be lying by omission if I didn't make it clear that I don't have academic expertise in any subject.

But I seem to be getting a pedantic attack of a thousand cuts from you where we don't really differ.

But we do really differ. Also, I haven't been attacking you. I've been raising serious questions about what you're doing and how you're doing it. Plus sometimes serious objections, too. That aren't the least bit pedantic, although I have been doing my best to provide a clear and detailed summary of the grounds on which I was raising them as I went. But that's just kind of how a fair debate is supposed to proceed, isn't it?

In any event. I really don't want to be mean. But I'm also really getting tired of pretending that I've never played this game before and don't understand that it's less like a fair debate than it is like three-card monte. The entire gambit depends on looking so easy to beat that people will keep playing until they're totally tapped out just out of sheer disbelief that they haven't yet won. It's a fool's game, in short. And generally speaking, unless I've got a non-game-related objective or goal of some kind that can't be attained in any other way that it's really, really crucial for me to attain, I'm not usually foolish enough to bother playing it. So I don't really know why I'm bothering now. Which is really not your problem, obviously. Sorry. I guess have to think about whether I really want to get in it to win it or not. And I'm really not sure whether I do or don't. I'm kind of in a statistical dead heat with myself wrt that question. I suppose I'll get back to you if I ever decide.

Just in case you or anyone else care to blow the dust off some of the serious questions raised by me and others that are lying around on various threads, I'll try to do a link round-up tomorrow. But other than that, for right now, anyway, I think I'm just going to wrap it up by reading on through and touching whatever bases happen to be lying directly in my path that I haven't already addressed at length earlier on this thread or on the one linked to in my last reply. Okay? Okay. Thanks.

I've been focusing at RI on exposing psyops as an evil deception that causes violence. I've been banging that drum til people are telling me to shut up already we get it.

So I don't know how you could mistake my agenda in this thread as you have.

I answered that there is a ban on domestic propaganda in Smith-Mundt.
And that I wished it were enforced.

You turned this around into my wishing there were a global US propaganda program. That's the intention of the main body of Smith-Mundt that got a placebo rider added making US civilians off-limits. That rider is what I referred to as, I think, "a noble palliative," not the main body.

Hugh, nobody else on the board besides you plays this little game of going back and rewording a strawman argument that's been exposed in order to make it look less like a strawman. I'm noting that once. And not again. Anyone who wants to look at the exchange on that thread, assuming that you didn't sneak in and rewrite that as well is free to read it. All of these issues were fully addressed there. By which I mean here.

I pointed at a psyoperator named J. Michael Waller and wished that anti-fascists would get smarter about strategic messaging to demographics since this is done to us.

You conflated this into my advocating deception and violence.

No, I didn't. Again, I refer you and anyone else who wants to see whether that's an accurate characterization of our exchange is welcome to read it here.

I went to the trouble of transcribing a military manual (not copy/paste off a website) to PROVE that national psyops programs are standard operating procedure with concrete definable goals, not a paranoid fantasy as professorpan and a few others dismiss.

You know, you really didn't have to go to that much trouble, wrt to the transcription. Because it is online. Right here. Syllable for syllable.

Astonishingly, even the line breaks in the bullet-pointed part are exactly in the same place in the online version as they are in your hand transcription. Look! I'm about to cut-and-paste them! Ready?

# Insurgents-to create dissension, disorganization, low morale, subversion, and defection within insurgent forces. Also important are national programs to win insurgents over to the government's side.

# Civilian population-to gain, preserve, and strengthen civilian support for the government and its counterinsurgency programs.

# Military forces--to gain, preserve, or strengthen military support with emphasis on building and maintaining the morale of these forces. The loyalty, discipline, and motivation of the forces are critical factors in combating insurgency.

# Neutral elements--to gain the support of uncommitted groups inside and outside of the threatened nation by revealing the insurgency's subversive activities. Also important is bringing international pressure to bear on any hostile power sponsoring the insurgency.

# External hostile powers--to convince the hostile power supporting the insurgents that the insurgency will fail.

Well, that was exciting.

Zap has implied that psyops is just for foreign targets. I refuted that with FM100-20-

Informational activities target not only enemy or foreign groups, but also populations internal to the nation. PSYOP activities are integral to counterinsurgency.

Anyone who's interested in that exchange can go read it. It's earlier on this thread. And your summary is not 100 % spin-free, I'm sorry to say.

You referred to BOTH a fantasy psyops and a real one and you know the difference and I don't.
Hunh?
A double-bind that you might elaborate on.

What does this mean?

"I demonstrated my ability to distinguish scary words that describe national psyops programs as they might occur in the abstract from dangerous and often lethal national psyops programs as they actually do occur in reality. It's a very important distinction."

Hm. I guess that for one thing it means I don't have to go to the trouble of pointing out that I didn't refer to the distinction between fantasy psyops and real ones, but rather to the distinction between the open-source, broadly-stated tenets of the psyops game plan that's printed in FM 100-20 and real-world examples of psyops. That are going on in the present, and can be pointed to as such.

For example, the subversion of what might otherwise have been some united and effective opposition to the illegal war we're still fighting in Iraq -- to say nothing of the numerous war crimes committed by, inter alia, the CIA all over the damn world -- by the dissension, disorganization, and low morale that anyone who knew the first thing about psyops could see at a glance was going to be the only fucking truth that the politically naive television junkies and other, assorted amateur sleuths who fell for the CSI-like allure of the controlled-demolition narrative were ever going to be able to congratulate themselves on successfully bringing about, as they watched the retreating backs of defectors fleeing their mindless, pie-in-the-sky fanaticism.

What should we know about psyops, c2w?

It's a very big subject, Hugh. I'd say that we should know that the reason they work is because they work on human nature. By playing to the same parts of it that any other con-game does, in exactly the same way that every other con game does. It's pretty much all three-card monte, when you get right down to it. You hook people in by showing them some dazzling prize that's absolutely impossible to grasp along with what's usually a more subtle suggestion that it will be easy to reach than three-card-monte artists typically employ. But it's the same basic principle. It only takes a few shills to get most people to start reaching for just about anything that's presented to them as very desirable. And there's just about nothing that human nature desires more persistently than a desirable object that's always just out of reach.

And....Let me think. Although nobody's really immune, preemptively speaking -- I mean in terms of psyop-proofing ourselves -- I'd also say that we should each make a rigorous good-faith effort, individually, to know where our vanities lie, what we most fear, and for what we most hope on a personal level. As well as under what circumstances our egos are most easily engaged, what threatens us and how we respond when threatened, and finally -- and this is much more difficult than one might think -- what we really want of our own volition. Both in the sense of what our objectives are, and in the sense of what our desires are.

Because if you fool yourself about any one of those things, pretty much anyone who knows the elementary mechanics of professional other-fooling can all but entirely take over your life in, like, a week.

It really doesn't take that much.

I've found from experience that the first thing people need to learn is that it IS REAL, codified, institutionalized, and in manuals you can read if you look for them.

And then you can figure out if media is psyops by analyzing whether it serves the goals and does so with intention.
Do you agree?

On the first point, no. Because I don't think that codified, institutionalize, and in manuals = REAL. I mean, they're real codes, institutions, and manuals, obviously. But no one ever got conned by a manual. Well, maybe not no one. But it's not like FM 100-20 is going to start playing mind games with you all on its own, or like it's constantly giving you come-hither glances, or jumping out from behind the door and shouting: BOO! It takes human agency to make an army field manual frightening, or fascinating, or any kind of important object of attention. In itself, it's a source of (repeating myself) the basic outlines of a psyops game plan as it might be executed by the military under particular circumstances. And as such, it's definitely worth knowing, of course. But there's not all that much to know, really. I mean, it's a fucking open source document, not the Rosetta Stone of psy-opery's deepest secrets.

On the second point, yes. I think that can be done. Sometimes very fruitfully. But I don't think it's easy to do. Or even possible to do with any certainty in the vast majority of cases. Nor do I think it's plainly the most important thing you can possibly do, under each and every circumstance. Still and all. The short answer, at least, is: Yes. I do agree with that.

[JackRiddler]

For example, the subversion of what might otherwise have been some united and effective opposition to the illegal war we're still fighting in Iraq -- to say nothing of the numerous war crimes committed by, inter alia, the CIA all over the damn world -- by the dissension, disorganization, and low morale that anyone who knew the first thing about psyops could see at a glance was going to be the only fucking truth that the politically naive television junkies and other, assorted amateur sleuths who fell for the CSI-like allure of the controlled-demolition narrative were ever going to be able to congratulate themselves on successfully bringing about, as they watched the retreating backs of defectors fleeing their mindless, pie-in-the-sky fanaticism.

Amusing, perceptive, quotable, but true only up to a point, which is to say, while the amateur sleuths bear a primary responsibility for creating this effect around 9/11 truth, not so much for the state of the antiwar movement generally. You can't blame them if the left chooses to dissolve itself due to fatigue, a sly establishment acceptance of its critiques without any change in policy (the "everyone knows that/it's old news now" gambit), and the conceit that the election of Democrats represents change rather than the opportunity to redouble their efforts and actually get some. The operation of bogus front groups like MoveOn, which mobilize millions and then disappear once there's no longer a percentage in it for the party and its backers, has had ten times the impact in diminishing the antiwar movement.

[Maddy]

O.T. - sort of.

Online disinhibition effect

Finally something brilliant from Wiki.

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

[compared2what?]

For example, the subversion of what might otherwise have been some united and effective opposition to the illegal war we're still fighting in Iraq -- to say nothing of the numerous war crimes committed by, inter alia, the CIA all over the damn world -- by the dissension, disorganization, and low morale that anyone who knew the first thing about psyops could see at a glance was going to be the only fucking truth that the politically naive television junkies and other, assorted amateur sleuths who fell for the CSI-like allure of the controlled-demolition narrative were ever going to be able to congratulate themselves on successfully bringing about, as they watched the retreating backs of defectors fleeing their mindless, pie-in-the-sky fanaticism.

Amusing, perceptive, quotable, but true only up to a point, which is to say, while the amateur sleuths bear a primary responsibility for creating this effect around 9/11 truth, not so much for the state of the antiwar movement generally. You can't blame them if the left chooses to dissolve itself due to fatigue, a sly establishment acceptance of its critiques without any change in policy (the "everyone knows that/it's old news now" gambit), and the conceit that the election of Democrats represents change rather than the opportunity to redouble their efforts and actually get some. The operation of bogus front groups like MoveOn, which mobilize millions and then disappear once there's no longer a percentage in it for the party and its backers, has had ten times the impact in diminishing the antiwar movement.

I agree that it wasn't the only psyop of our time, the first psyop of our time, or the most pernicious psyop of our time, Monsieur Riddler. Furthermore, in that all of them depend on having a largely politically inexperienced and passive electorate, I'd actually say that Hugh's favorite culprit, the media, is indeed at the very best, a major enabler for most of them. In a hiding-in-plain-sight and difficult-to-mystify kind of a way.

But yes, totally. CD purists didn't destroy the American polity and I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that they did. I just wanted to use an example that didn't require a lot of explanation in itself, and...Well. I wish I felt more optimistic about this than I do. But fwiw, since I was genuinely trying to contribute something to the subject of an informative and constructive nature, to the best of my ability to do so, I was also trying to maximize the lesson plan being offered in the form of FM 100-20 by using an example that was so very, very clearly in conformity with one of the techniques delineated therein. More teachable that way, was my thought.

Plus, while groups like MoveOn definitely do help till the soil for the purposes of the second tactic on that list, their principle function isn't really to thwart potential domestic counter-insurgencies, properly speaking. And anyway, what single example is there that isn't only true up to a point? Like I said, it's a very big subject. Political activism in general is still yet a bigger one. And politics as a whole encompasses both of them with room for, like, another thirty galaxies to spare. In good faith and with all due humility, I submit that the example I used is true up to the point of the point I was addressing. I mean, I'm only one person, for mercy's sake. What do you want from me?

IOW: What you say is both true and need-to-know, from the perspective of the informed discourse about the lack of which I'm always whining. Therefore, I quite naturally can only respond by saying how profoundly offended I am that you, of all people, should choose to so viciously attack me out of the blue like this. And in such unnecessarily personal terms, too. So you know what? Fuck you. This vendetta is ON, motherfucker!

Note: The paragraph immediately above should be read as if it were in a green font. And the one above that is there because I needed a set-up. And now, to return to our regularly scheduled programming:

I agree. Excellent point.
______________________

Maddy and §ê¢rꆧ, I genuinely can't tell whether what you're posting is addressed to me, or a comment on my post, or what. Or what you're saying if it is. So please forgive me for not addressing the point if it's a point that I should be addressing. But if it is, I'm sorry to say that you're just gonna have to make it to my face. Because it's simply not getting through in its present form.

In fact, even if you're not addressing me, could one or both of you elaborate a little? I mean, it's my failure and not yours that I don't understand what point you're making, I fully concede. However, since I would very much like to understand it -- and that's totally irrespective of to whom you're saying it and despite the obstacle of my own denseness, btw -- I'd very much appreciate the assist.

So. I'm sorry to be such an idiot. But since I am, my only recourse is to ask. What are you saying?

Thanks.

[rusty shackleford]

C2W,

I am not Hugh, and Hugh are not me, but don't let that stop you from endless speculation about who's hands are up Hugh's backside or vice versa. This perpetual game of spot the sock puppet is only amusing if one has no real purpose here but to sow discord and waste time. I am not interested in either of those, and I'll prove it by allowing you the last word on this subject, although I doubt that you would be satisfied with a thousand.

[monster]

Same thing happens when people get behind the wheel of an automobile.

Normal person + car = Total Fuckwad

[JackRiddler]

Same thing happens when people get behind the wheel of an automobile.

Normal person + car = Total Fuckwad

Yeah, that was a lame joke I told throughout my extended adolescence: Who are the only two infallible beings? The pope and a car driver who just fucked up. Or even ran you over!

Anyway I'm sure McLuhan could come in and tell us about more about "the extensions of man." (I'd be Woody in this scenario, not the blowhard in the line. But I hope anyone even gets the relevance of that.)

c2w?:

Who's this IOW? S/he's in for it now, poor bastard!

.

[compared2what?]

C2W,

I am not Hugh, and Hugh are not me, but don't let that stop you from endless speculation about who's hands are up Hugh's backside or vice versa. This perpetual game of spot the sock puppet is only amusing if one has no real purpose here but to sow discord and waste time. I am not interested in either of those, and I'll prove it by allowing you the last word on this subject, although I doubt that you would be satisfied with a thousand.

No, I'm happy to take you at your however-many-words, actually. And I apologize for the hostility, too. Thanks for your generosity.