Security Theater ("Crisis Actors")

[Luther Blissett]

Wow, I'm actually flummoxed to see that the first mention of the phrase "crisis actor" on this board was in 2013 in the Sandy Hook thread.

Doesn't your memory of the term far predate that tragedy? At least as far back as 9/11?

[Wombaticus Rex]

Wow, I'm actually flummoxed to see that the first mention of the phrase "crisis actor" on this board was in 2013 in the Sandy Hook thread.

Doesn't your memory of the term far predate that tragedy? At least as far back as 9/11?

Who are we to disagree with the Gods, though?
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q= ... 20actor%22

[brainpanhandler]

Of course, atrocities occur outside of this framework, outside of their purview, occur "naturally", but in my humble opinion, it's easy to tell the difference: the absence or presence of a [international/national] trumped up media circus.

If the Boston bombing, as an example, was real in the sense that there was a conspiracy to place real bombs there and blow people up (regardless of all the deep state machinations that might have happened to enable that), then there was going to be a media circus. The Boston marathon is one of the largest, oldest marathons in the world. It is heavily covered by the media for a national and international audience. It was of course chosen for this reason. "The absence or presence of a trumped up media circus" seems a poor barometer for judging the proportion of tangible fictional elements of one of these tragedies. The media, owned and operated by the same network of oligarchs with an interest in the message, actually still cares about views, click through and ad revenue. Blood and tragedy sells.

Not to mention, atrocities are not predictable, and do not occur every other week in this part of the world or any part of the world, unless targeted by western oligarchs.

The media also censors, you know.

[divideandconquer]

"The absence or presence of a trumped up media circus" seems a poor barometer for judging the proportion of tangible fictional elements of one of these tragedies.

You're right. Of course the mainstream media cannot ignore an atrocity that takes place in the glaring spotlight so I should have added the presence of inconsistencies, giant holes, components of the event that defy common sense and/or science, etc.

However, it amazes me how the media gets away with ignoring things that should be giant stories. And If the Boston bombing did not somehow fit into their agenda, they may not be able to ignore it completely, but I'm sure they would find a way to play it down in the eyes of the public.

[elfismiles]

As mentioned in previous threads about the topic it would seem the idea behind "crisis actors" definitely predates 2013 in a variety of parapolitically oriented forms but the term itself seems to have arisen and taken hold at that time.

Can we start a new "crisis actor" thread?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38140

It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Acting)
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38406

Well, have you successfully eliminated use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" or other off-limits / co-opted by TPTB words and phrases?

If so, congrats!

I get your point. But perhaps as we elaborate our own Parapolitical Lexicon we can recognize and denote the origins and use/misuse of such coopted language to better explain ourselves to those who so often use the same words without the level of background we are steeped in.

Wow, I'm actually flummoxed to see that the first mention of the phrase "crisis actor" on this board was in 2013 in the Sandy Hook thread.

Doesn't your memory of the term far predate that tragedy? At least as far back as 9/11?

Who are we to disagree with the Gods, though?
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q= ... 20actor%22

[BrandonD]

"Power tends to be exploited" = "If the powerful CAN do it, then they WILL do it." (only in a hyperbolic and more entertaining way)?

And the people that know me irl would scoff and guffaw at the suggestion that I "tend to be the defender of the status quo". But perhaps you meant that in an entertaining, hyperbolic way.

In general, there are 2 arguments against a conspiracy theory that involves wealthy/powerful people doing terrible things that would benefit them: either they *couldn't* do it or they *wouldn't* do it.

In other words, either they don't have the means or it's just not conceivable that people would do something so immoral.

The second is a great argument for the average man, but IMO it has been thoroughly discredited by anyone who frequents RI.

So really, the only defensible argument against such conspiracy theories is that those in power are simply unable to do it. Or, perhaps it is possible but the risks would outweigh the benefits.

Do we believe that, in events of major social impact, people with power and influence would be unable to insert actors into positions of prominence in news stories, with the intention of directing public discourse in a manner benefiting their goals?

Would the risks outweigh the benefits? Are those in power risking themselves in any way by doing such things? Look at the crimes of Bush/Cheney or the financial bailout, an actor in a news story pales in comparison - do the powerful EVER have to answer for their crimes?

The actor scenario seems not only completely possible, but fairly easy considering today's media monopoly. Many of us have seen those Conan OBrien sketches where news people from across the country repeat the exact same news story word-for-word, showing clearly that they're all just repeating something that has been passed down from a central source.

So my point here is that 1) powerful people have the means, and 2) it would not be beneath their "morality".

So why exactly wouldn't they do it?

This is what I meant by: If they CAN do it, then they WILL do it. The powerful are not above committing massive crimes if they can get away with it.

This doesn't mean that every prominent person in a news story is an actor of course, I was also assuming that those of us here understand the importance of nuance and discrimination.

It was my impression that you've not only dismissed the Sandy Hook crisis actor stuff (which is fine), but the entire concept as a whole (which I consider unfounded). Maybe I've misjudged you as the "defender of the status quo", and if that's the case then I apologize. I consider defenders of the status quo to be those who defend the establishment point of view, and this applies to all social and political spectrums, not just the right-wing psychos. The establishment always has a coke and a pepsi, to give people the illusion of change and progress.

[American Dream]

.


What Do You Say to a Roanoke Truther?

[SonicG]

Interesting side-bar...Funny guy but he is really going to get fucked on this I think...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/arts/ ... -lied.html

When the comedian Steve Rannazzisi has explained his success, which includes seven seasons starring on a popular TV show, “The League,” and a one-hour special this Saturday on Comedy Central, he has frequently attributed it to decisions he made after narrowly escaping the World Trade Center attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

In elaborate detail, Mr. Rannazzisi, 37, has described working at Merrill Lynch’s offices on the 54th floor of the south tower when the first plane struck the north tower.

“I was there and then the first tower got hit and we were like jostled all over the place,” he told an interviewer in 2009.

He fled to the street just minutes before another plane slammed into his building, he said, and decided that very day that life was too precious to waste opportunities. So he abandoned his New York desk job to pursue a career as an entertainer in Los Angeles.

Nonetheless, he said, he remained affected by his memories of that day.


“I still have dreams of like, you know, those falling dreams,” he told the interviewer.

Confronted by The New York Times this week, though, with evidence that undermined his account, Mr. Rannazzisi, after a day of deliberation, acknowledged on Tuesday that his account was fiction. Actually, he had been working in Midtown that day, and not for Merrill Lynch, which has no record of his employment and had no offices in either tower.

[brainpanhandler]

"Power tends to be exploited" = "If the powerful CAN do it, then they WILL do it." (only in a hyperbolic and more entertaining way)?

And the people that know me irl would scoff and guffaw at the suggestion that I "tend to be the defender of the status quo". But perhaps you meant that in an entertaining, hyperbolic way.

In general, there are 2 arguments against a conspiracy theory that involves wealthy/powerful people doing terrible things that would benefit them: either they *couldn't* do it or they *wouldn't* do it.

In other words, either they don't have the means or it's just not conceivable that people would do something so immoral.

The second is a great argument for the average man, but IMO it has been thoroughly discredited by anyone who frequents RI.

So really, the only defensible argument against such conspiracy theories is that those in power are simply unable to do it. Or, perhaps it is possible but the risks would outweigh the benefits.

With that "or..." you added the option missing from your earlier false dichotomy. Of course there are more than 2 arguments.

Do we believe that, in events of major social impact, people with power and influence would be unable to insert actors into positions of prominence in news stories, with the intention of directing public discourse in a manner benefiting their goals?

I'm not sure who the royal "we" is, but I believe actors could and have been inserted "into positions of prominence in news stories, with the intention of directing public discourse in a manner benefiting their goals." Wag the Dog was a documentary. I also think that theory has concurrently been disseminated and misapplied to scenarios where it hasn't happened for the purpose of further eroding people's sense of reality and furthering a complete distrust of any information they receive from the msm. Not everything the msm reports on is lies, spin and fabrication.

do the powerful EVER have to answer for their crimes?

Not often.

The actor scenario seems not only completely possible, but fairly easy considering today's media monopoly. Many of us have seen those Conan OBrien sketches where news people from across the country repeat the exact same news story word-for-word, showing clearly that they're all just repeating something that has been passed down from a central source.

I think it's possible in limited situations. The more people that need to know the less likely it is.

So my point here is that 1) powerful people have the means, and 2) it would not be beneath their "morality".

So why exactly wouldn't they do it?

Because, as you have alluded to, the risks would outweigh the benefits. There are risks. Blowing up the twin towers, by whatever means that was accomplished, was a risk. It might after the fact seem that there was no risk because nothing happened to the perpetrators, but they couldn't have been certain before hand that it would play out that way.

This is what I meant by: If they CAN do it, then they WILL do it. The powerful are not above committing massive crimes if they can get away with it.

Of course not. That's how they got powerful. They're opportunistic sociopaths with no regard for the ants they crush. Which doesn't mean they will willy nilly murder thousands of people without the promise of accruing significant benefit. It's a terrible mistake to believe your enemy is stupid simply because they are wrong (or sociopathic).

This doesn't mean that every prominent person in a news story is an actor of course,

Well, that's a bit understated. Don't you think?

I was also assuming that those of us here understand the importance of nuance and discrimination.

And that's a bit overstated. Don't you think?

It was my impression that you've not only dismissed the Sandy Hook crisis actor stuff (which is fine), but the entire concept as a whole (which I consider unfounded).

Not sure where you got that impression. Nuance and discrimination are important.

Maybe I've misjudged you as the "defender of the status quo", and if that's the case then I apologize.

No apology necessary. And you're not the only one that has radically misjudged me in this fashion. All you have to do to get pegged with the "defender of the status quo" label around here is try to apply and little "nuance and discrimination" to somebody's hairbrained theory. All of the sudden you're an msnbc watching, Hillary supporting bot with no ability to see how you are being manipulated.

I consider defenders of the status quo to be those who defend the establishment point of view, and this applies to all social and political spectrums, not just the right-wing psychos. The establishment always has a coke and a pepsi, to give people the illusion of change and progress.

I've been a member here for coming up on 9 years now. Tired of endlessly reestablishing my Ri bona fides. Sigh.

[coffin_dodger]

bph:

And you're not the only one that has radically misjudged me in this fashion

Care to expand on this generalised insinuation?

[Wombaticus Rex]

bph:

And you're not the only one that has radically misjudged me in this fashion

Care to expand on this generalised insinuation?

Is that really necessary? It's happened a lot this year. To everyone. Yourself included. Facts of life.

Digging into that in more detail results in -- what? Perpetuating what? Accomplishing what?

[coffin_dodger]

bph:

And you're not the only one that has radically misjudged me in this fashion

Care to expand on this generalised insinuation?

Is that really necessary? It's happened a lot this year. To everyone. Yourself included. Facts of life.

Digging it that in more detail results in -- what? Perpetuating what? Accomplishing what?

Spoil sport.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I just want to nip interpersonal grudge analysis in the bud and your fishing line was not exactly subtle. I think there is a real value in staying focused on concepts and facts vs. RI members, and that value is both multi-faceted and profound.

People misunderstand each other here, often, and it will happen again. There's a low utility value on doing the whole "Let's Talk This Out" routine when we've got so many, so many minefields going on at once here.

Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/where-have ... ne/5457522

Crisis Actors is a professional group of actors trained at Visionbox to develop and portray characters in emergency training scenarios. The intensity at which they work recreates real life pressures that first responders going through the training must cope with.

Crisis Actors, at this time, consists of two teams.

The first team is the same group that makes up our professional acting ensemble and is the initial group to work on this project. Our actors with the guidance of filmmaker John Simmons, school safety expert Steve Hoban, and Executive Artistic Director Jennifer McCray Rincon, have developed scenarios aimed at training first responders (teachers, administrators, custodians, etc) how to effectively manage an emergency with quick and powerful decisions. This special group has sessions with police officers, 911 operators, school administrators, mall security, radio experts, and school safety training professionals. There is an endless amount of scenarios this group can tackle, which range anywhere from weather issues, to a missing child, to an unknown intruder.

The second team is a group of highly talented actors that have been working on their acting craft by training with Master Acting Teacher Jennifer McCray Rincon on classic material written by Anton Chekhov, Tennessee Williams, Shakespeare, Brecht, and other influential playwrights. Eventually, the second team will go through the same training the first team went through. This intense work will eventually be applied to portraying characters in a Crisis Actor training scenario.

For more information please visit the Crisis Actors website, call us at 720.810.1641, or email us at info@visionbox.org

Lots more at the link; it's an interesting piece.

[coffin_dodger]

Wom, your integrity is exceptional - and being the jealous type, I covet it. (shame there's no asskiss emoticon). Potential wildfire, well extinguished.

[Bryter]

Seems like a good place to put this.