Successful Boston Marathon Psyop Captures RI

[JackRiddler]

Many here agree with the constructive overstatement that World War III started long ago, and it is an information war (McLuhan, originally). Some of the same people, however, aid and abet the enemy in this war, objectively serving the interests of the very same spook "elites" they purport to oppose. There are many subtle and arguable ways we might all unconsciously do so, I dare say. But there are also obvious and egregious cases. I refer specifically to the brand of "crisis actor" stories that could not be more repulsive and alienating to non-reptilian human beings endowed with minimal empathic capacity than if this was the plan. The practice involves confabulating non-evidence and wrapping it in some general irrelevant facts to create maximally misleading, confusionist narratives. For which claim can we find more evidence, actually? That there are "crisis actors" present at whatever the latest gun or bomb massacre is that murdered many Americans at random? (In the present wave these theories only seem to attach to cases of mass-murder involving Americans.) Or for the idea that such theories are known to be false and yet advanced by plan?

Let's entertain that hypothesis for a moment: that "crisis actor" posts are part of a plan to discourage discussion about actual open cases of deep state or parapolitical abuses. Let us consider the Boston bombing. One of the brothers had been adopted by academics in the neocon milieu. The others' criminal associate was shot dead in cold blood while in custody by an FBI officer during an interrogation. You can find lots of stories and posts about this on RI, although these are currently unkicked, even as a disinfo thread about "crisis actors" in Boston prospers on the front page.

We're talking about the same FBI that, since 9/11, has initiated and constructed two dozen entrapment cases recruiting naive young Muslim men in the United States as patsies, and sold this as a wave of "terrorism". In the wake of an actual bomb killing people in Boston, details like the brothers' actual associations can't be good for too many people to know. (Parallel: the actual associations of the 9/11 alleged hijackers and their "Al Qaeda" support network, which provides the original template for hoax stories starting a dozen years ago.)

So a distraction is needed. If you look at pictures of people staggering around in the smoke and blood and severed limbs after the Boston bombing, can you perhaps see someone who is acting to help people? Does he turn out to be some random antiwar veteran, also the father of an Iraq war veteran? Is he someone most people will automatically like? Does he wear a cowboy hat?! Perfect! We can suggest that this person was actually involved as an accomplice in the very same act of mass murder that unfolded around him, which could have also killed him. As a bonus, he is Latino, and we can highlight this as a means of adding some racist appeal to our toxic mix. That should serve to make for weeks worth of disgusting posts at Alex Jonestown!

And, of course, it will mobilize legions of "anti-conspiracist" skeptics in response. A symbiotic if hostile interaction follows between the sorts of people who follow Alex Jones and the sort who follow James Randi. It serves to make it radioactive for anyone rational to talk of an FBI involvement in the Boston incident (and of the outright FBI murder of the witness!). If you do, you will be associated with the likes of the Jonestowners and the sewage they smear.

Spiritual brethren of the Jonestowners in the arts of black propaganda should have thought of this back at Kent State. They should have said the dead students were actually live actors working with the National Guard. They should have "discovered" the girl crying and screaming over the corpse of her dead friend once played the lead in a second-grade school play about Jesus, and was therefore a born faker.

Back then, the haters and people poisoned by decades of Amerikanist conditioning were far more literal minded, however, and instead said the students deserved to be shot. Rumors were invented and spread that the coroners didn't want to touch the lice-ridden corpses of the dead hippies with their powerful body odor. What kind of people would approvingly adopt and spread such statements? (There's a surplus of such people still left today, of course, and they make up the bulk of the current Tea Party and patriot right, especially the couch potato brigades.) Those of you inventing evidence and inverting logic to manufacture "crisis actors" out of the victims of modern-day atrocities differ from these predecessors in that they were incomparably more honest and direct.

Is my point clear enough now? This is an information war. I am not here to propagate kumbaya and fake friendliness with apologists for crime, morons, assholes, disinfo artists, disinfo repeaters, and junior COINTELPRO agents, to be included in sick, inhuman defamations of random victims and witnesses, or to find the magic formula for a middle ground between the Left (such as it is) and the Tea Party right. If that is what you are doing, you have already chosen to be my enemy in an information war and a class war, and I will not be seeking anything other than your enlightenment. There are points of view with which we need not compromise, which allow no middle ground. Everyone dig?

[minime]

Many here agree with the constructive overstatement that World War III started long ago, and it is an information war. You are aiding and abetting the enemy, objectively serving the interests of the very same spook "elites" you purport to expose, by fabulating non-evidence and wrapping it in some general irrelevant facts to create confusionist narratives that could not be more misleading. These stories also could not be more repulsive and alienating to non-reptilian human beings endowed with minimal empathic capacity, than if this was the plan. Certainly there is more evidence for that, than for your claims, so let's entertain the hypothesis that posts such as yours are part of a plan: to discourage discussion about the actual open case of the Boston bombing. One of the brothers had been adopted by academics in the neocon milieu, while the others' criminal associate was shot dead in cold blood while in custody by an FBI officer during an interrogation. You know, the same FBI that has initiated and constructed two dozen entrapment cases recruiting naive young Muslim men in the United States as patsies, and pretending this is a wave of "terrorism". In the wake of an actual bomb killing people in Boston, that sort of stuff can't be good for too many people to know. A distraction is needed. So is there some random antiwar father of a veteran who is acting to help people in the smoke and blood after the explosion, preferably someone most people will automatically like? Can we suggest that this person was actually involved as an accomplice in the very same act of mass murder that unforlded around him, and could have also killed him? That should serve to make for weeks worth of disgusting posts at Alex Jonestown, and of course mobilize legions of "anti-conspiracist" skeptics in response. It will make talk of an FBI involvement in the incident and of the murder of the witness radioactive for anyone to touch, as they will be associated with the likes of you and the sewage you smear.

Your spiritual brethren in the arts of black propaganda should have thought of this back at Kent State, and said the dead students were actually actors working with the National Guard. Back then, the haters and Amerikanists were more literal minded, and instead said the students deserved to be shot. Rumors were invented and spread that the coroners didn't want to touch the lice-ridden corpses of the dead hippies with their powerful body odor. What kind of people would approvingly adopt and spread such statements? You differ from these predecessors in that they were incomparably more honest and direct.

Is my point clear enough now? Now, "champ," do not mention me again in this travesty thread, which I said I would no longer engage in prior to your personal attack, and do not employ insulting variations on my screenname. Or I will see to it that only one of our two screen personas survives as an open RI account in this Internet knife-fight. Me or you to the virtual death, mother fucker. This is an information war. I am not here to propagate kumbaya and fake friendliness with apologists for crime, morons, assholes, disinfo artists, disinfo repeaters, and junior COINTELPRO agents, or to be included in your sick, inhuman defamations of random victims and witnesses. Dig?

[82_28]

I dig and don't dig. I totally see what you're saying, Jack. However, I have maintained the speculative theory that what we think of as the day of 9/11 would have been impossible if it happened in 2011. Nobody had phones with 6MP cameras and instant use of what we now call "social media". There would have been hundreds, if not thousands of immediate uploads of footage. Can anyone explain why the official survelliance cams are so goddamned outclassed by what everyone has in their pockets or purses? (If you know who this guy is, contact police -- combined with a grainy capture) While we march into this brave new world, we would be ignorant to not imagine the crimes that were pulled off because of lack of resolution and bandwidth of the day would have been impossible to distribute let alone see. I believe there is an ongoing rollout of technology in order to exterminate us all. I'm not being paranoid. I really don't care -- except I do. Just, how much I get nagged for not starting up a facebook account and their algorithms think I'm in their system. I tried to start up an account for our fake company:

www.earlyclues.com

And yet, daily they persist at spamming my (fake) corporate email account, I think presuming that I will PRESUME that oh golly gee, I have to click on this shit. I backed out when I saw the details they wanted out of me. I never signed up, but because of my attention I afforded it with my fake email address, they think they can get me to finally bite the hook.

[JackRiddler]

minime:

[minime]

[stefano]

Yes. Thanks.

While we're on McLuhan and speculating, though - what is the sociological/technological dynamic that makes this a thing? Why weren't people suspicious about crisis actors in the days of Ohio State etc.? This has to do with the way in which we are able to an unprecedented degree to pick our media sources. Combined with innate human vanity (each of us thinks we know better than everyone else), the fact that there are dozens of ready-made dogmatic ideologies out there to pick from, each of which offers its adherents the thrill of feeling like a privileged and enlightened insider, makes it pretty much inevitable that many of the curious will be led down these bullshit-dotted paths. The vanity is the operative thing, the human constant on which the disinformation agents know they can count. The smorgasbord of exciting narratives is new, as is, I think, a very modern sense of entitlement that also helps drive this. In the days when all news was mediated by editors and anchors, only those who really knew that they were in a position of superior knowledge thought that they were. These days everyone who has a half hour a day to spare surfing the web is an expert.

[Hunter]

Pretty simple to me. What seems more likely? That Agency XYZ recruited and helped along a couple of individuals to commit a real, genuine act of terror with real bombs and real victims, or the whole thing was fake, bomb wasnt real and all the victims were actors and the result of hollywood special effects?

I gave up on all 9-11 truth discussion with colleagues because they immediately lump me in with people who think there were no planes and such, when I fact all I am asking is simple questions about building 7, possible cutting charges placed in buildings to help bring them down, you know, logical things that just dont add up but you now get lumped in with all the crazies. I saw how this happened, I saw how they did this and I know exactly how and why they did it. They have ruined any and all honest and genuine discussion of real conspiracies that are happening all around us every day. You gotta admit, it was a brilliant counter move against those of us inclined to question things and not believe official party lines. They neutralized that threat very quickly and to the point I wont even discuss things like that anymore with anyone for fear it will ruin my reputation and credibility by being associated with the likes of Jones, anti-semites and other bigots and maggots who have made a mockery of it all and turned it in to a charade.

[82_28]

What was with that NYFD documentary filmed at the exact time? They provided the seminal images of the first plane back when nobody else could have. They could have been placed. Could have. Also the bringing down of building 7 and its well known media mistake could have been deliberate as well.

[JackRiddler]

Pretty simple to me. What seems more likely? That Agency XYZ recruited and helped along a couple of individuals to commit a real, genuine act of terror with real bombs and real victims, or the whole thing was fake, bomb wasnt real and all the victims were actors and the result of hollywood special effects?

Yes. Imagine organizing 150 people in Hollywood-level trauma make-up, with fake amputations and burns and fake blood and clothes all torn up, at the scene of a fake bombing which you are going to stage at the finish line of a globally covered sports event. The area is swarmed by literally dozens of U.S. and international television crews! Except wait, the second before your fake bomb goes off, your fake victims have to still appear to be uninjured spectators. Okay, so you set off some smoke bombs and you've got a really fast Hollywood make-up team that transforms your actor-spectators into actor-victims within a total time of three or four seconds. No problem, as certain experts on this site with movie-making experience and IMDB credits can tell you!

And what is the carrier agency for such an action? What is their motive, what do they gain? (Oh come on, only the naive would ask: they're evil, they don't need motives.) What is the motive of the actors for participating in this? What keeps them quiet about it for the next XX years? Is this to be their life henceforth, pretending to be a fake survivor of a fake event? How many people are involved as fake relatives, and fake neighbors of the fake relatives? Are there basically fake cities in this?

The simple matter of setting off a real bomb and blaming it on a patsy (if that is what happened), which has been successfully pulled off hundreds of times in history, suddenly bloats into an operation requiring the domed city-stage and cast of thousands of The Truman Show.

But the creators of these ideas NEVER ask these questions, which already tells you what you need to know.

Now imagine, by contrast, organizing a couple of dozen assholes at their computer screens. Through persona management software, they can be reinforced by a factor of 10, or 100, and never need to put on anything over their underwear. You are a government agency or a private contractor or a corporate PR squad that wants to do "cognitive infiltration" actions to generally discredit all "conspiracy theorists." Your target CTs may be complete nuts or, far worse, credible researchers. The point is for them to all look the same. Today's marching orders might be to go to Prison Planet and make the ugliest, craziest, dumbest possible bunch of posts about how the real victims at a real bombing with real bones sticking out of their severed legs are actually "crisis actors." (I think we've probably all seen that thread, one of the most disgusting in Internet history.)

Your troops' motivation for this gross action is that they are "skeptics" who hate conspiracy theorists. They know they're doing something ugly but think it's hilarious, admirable and necessary to troll Alex Jonestown, and believe this will help stem the spread of "dangerous" conspiracy theory. They are happy to take a few hundred dollars each to do the kind of thing they might be doing anyway. Do we even need "troops" for this? One person could be registered as the 10 users who pile on in reinforcing the initial canard! They take no risk whatsoever, and neither do you, the organizing agency. If one of your minor disinfo contractors repents and runs around Web forums singing about this operation, a) few will care, b) many will not believe, c) barely any will hear of it, d) nothing has been lost, in fact it only amplifies the confusionism, and e) the only sanction necessary against the "traitor" is that you don't hire them for the next action.

Which is more credible as a theory? Which pays off more obviously in benefits? Which has the least risk?

One of the most important losses in understanding about social deception operations in open societies by governments, corporations, elite cabals and deep state actors has come about by replacing the idea of "plausible deniability" as the central and usual organizing principle with that of "revelation of the method."

When on this forum I see people capable of writing sentences represent the first theory and then insist on it despite the simple, obvious refutations, I consider whether they are exceptionally disassociative, but generally they're far too coherent for this to be believable. Far more likely they are trolls. They are doing the work of cognitive infiltration. They may be doing it on their own, again because they think it's a personal duty to troll the CTs, or because they get kicks out of it. Or they may be part of a simple, low-risk, low-cost, deniable psy-op.

I saw how this happened, I saw how they did this and I know exactly how and why they did it. They have ruined any and all honest and genuine discussion of real conspiracies that are happening all around us every day. You gotta admit, it was a brilliant counter move against those of us inclined to question things and not believe official party lines. They neutralized that threat very quickly and to the point I wont even discuss things like that anymore with anyone for fear it will ruin my reputation and credibility by being associated with the likes of Jones, anti-semites and other bigots and maggots who have made a mockery of it all and turned it in to a charade.

[BrandonD]

Pretty simple to me. What seems more likely? That Agency XYZ recruited and helped along a couple of individuals to commit a real, genuine act of terror with real bombs and real victims, or the whole thing was fake, bomb wasnt real and all the victims were actors and the result of hollywood special effects?

I agree, scenario 1 makes a lot more sense and is the most likely scenario IMO.

I think everyone would agree that we would like to lessen the influence of false ideas on public consciousness. So then, does the tactic of using intimidation to silence people promoting what we consider to be false ideas succeed in that goal?

From my perspective it's obvious that the above method does nothing to remove an idea from the public consciousness. It actually does precisely the opposite and draws attention to the idea. It is like an angry man shouting "don't look behind this curtain!"

This thread is actually a humorous illustration of that concept, a bunch of people discussing "crisis actors" when there no longer remains anyone in the forum who takes the subject seriously! So now the idea gets even more space on the forum, a whole new thread dedicated to it.

In addition, it is only simple common sense that many newcomers to this subject, after seeing people display such aggressive intimidation tactics on one subject in particular, will think to themselves, "thou doth protest too much", and seriously consider a subject that they would have normally disregarded. I've seen it happen many times.

This whole subject has little to do with "playing nice" though that justification has been trotted out multiple times, because taking an opposition to kindness and civility appeals to intellectual men with a need to feel tough.

The point is that using intimidation to silence discussion is not "mean" but irrational, if the goal is to remove focus on that particular subject. Attention makes it grow, that is a simple rule. If a foolish idea is simply ignored, it will go away. That's how it works.

[minime]

I was reading this thread, and others on the front page, and the thought kept coming to me...

thou doth protest too much

So, thank you for that.

If true, the question is why?

My answer: Just my opinion... Misdirection away from the self.

One in a 1000 threads addresses the self. To be ignored, buried.

The self is the threat; the self is the enemy.

[JackRiddler]

So then, does the tactic of using intimidation to silence people promoting what we consider to be false ideas succeed in that goal?

BrandonD has a very low threshold for detecting "intimidation." He feels easily intimidated.

[IanEye]

The point is that using intimidation to silence discussion is not "mean" but irrational, if the goal is to remove focus on that particular subject.

"Anger towards "hoaxer" conspiracy theorists is entirely misdirected."

If one were to be intimidated into feeling their anger towards hoaxers was entirely misdirected, they might keep silent during a discussion.

If the attempt at intimidation failed, those in league with hoaxers might get told to go fuck themselves.

.

[JackRiddler]

I was reading this thread, and others on the front page, and the thought kept coming to me...

thou doth protest too much

I quit on this subject. Was no longer going to engage. Then, today, I saw chump did a very long personal attack on "the self" - my own. He also threw in some undeniable racist shit against Latinos, for which well he should be banned, in my opinion, and I'll say so. All of this prompted me to respond. The subject is real enough. A form of particularly dishonest and misanthropic disinformation, which I did not invent, can be found around the Internet. It targets random victims and bystanders at acts of mass violence, and uses their names and pictures in constructing accusations that they participated in these acts. It has also taken hold among a group who are pushing it at RI. The work of deep state researchers generally is being associated with this disinfo, to the delight of the faux-skeptic community. Others can decide whether it's distraction to answer it (or intimidation, or ego, or disruptive to some ideal of civility or harmony we're supposed to reflect, or whatever). Or whether the real distraction is the disinfo in the first place.

[minime]

I was reading this thread, and others on the front page, and the thought kept coming to me...

thou doth protest too much

I quit on this subject. Was no longer going to engage. Then, today, I saw chump did a very long personal attack on "the self" - my own. He also threw in some undeniable racist shit against Latinos, for which well he should be banned, in my opinion, and I'll say so. All of this prompted me to respond. The subject is real enough. A form of particularly dishonest and misanthropic disinformation, which I did not invent, can be found around the Internet. It targets random victims and bystanders at acts of mass violence, and uses their names and pictures in constructing accusations that they participated in these acts. It has also taken hold among a group who are pushing it at RI. The work of deep state researchers generally is being associated with this disinfo, to the delight of the faux-skeptic community. Others can decide whether it's distraction to answer it (or intimidation, or ego, or disruptive to some ideal of civility or harmony we're supposed to reflect, or whatever). Or whether the real distraction is the disinfo in the first place.

chump was out of line. He seems to be distraught.

You felt the need to reply and then start a new thread with the same post?

Well, not exactly the same post--one fouler than the last.

Whatever.

How's University? Seems you are putting your Hegel to good use.