What's Happening? It? (TRIGGERS UPON TRIGGERS)

[MacCruiskeen]

oh I have not forgot about them but it seems everyone else has

[Wombaticus Rex]

Meanwhile, this thread is demonstrably about something other than our current President. (Convoluted arguments that #PIZZAGATE is ultimately about Trump are always welcome, of course, please provide links.)

Some free ammo: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... -pick.html

-73% of Trump voters think that George Soros is paying protesters against Trump to only 6% who think that's not true, and 21% who aren't sure one way or the other. (I personally had to explain to my Grandmother that this wasn't true a few weeks ag0 after someone sent her an e-mail about it.)

-14% of Trump supporters think Hillary Clinton is connected to a child sex ring run out of a Washington DC pizzeria. Another 32% aren't sure one way or another, much as the North Carolinian who went to Washington to check it out last weekend said was the case for him. Only 54% of Trump voters expressly say they don't think #Pizzagate is real.

Meanwhile, the Wiki Talk Page on this remains a beautiful slice of Americana:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pizz ... acy_theory)

In general Buzzfeed easily meets the criteria of our reliable sources guideline. It has a high reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, an established editorial team, and is regularly cited by other highly reliable media. In fact just this morning I read multiple articles at the Columbia Journalism Review (just about the most reliable outlet there is) citing Buzzfeed on stories about fake news. Buzzfeed is regularly cited across Wikipedia and has withstood many challenges at WP:RSN.

TL;DR - Pizzagate is debunked because Pizzagate was articulated by hysterical morons. The cultural phenomenon overtook any "investigation" before Trump was even elected.

Making a case before you know what you're looking at doesn't seem to be an effective means of raising awareness.

[PufPuf93]

divideandconquer says:

Some sort of stockholm syndrome? Overall, people who continue to buy into the right/left paradigm trust that certain power brokers--in this case, from the left-- either have their best interest at heart, or at the very least, are the lesser of two evils. Now that it's come out that elite CP networks cross political lines--duh!--people can't let go of their sympathetic sentiments and the trust and hope they've invested in these powerful people.

I'm beginning to think this "fake news" narrative and "pizzagate" is checkmate against truth seekers. It's just a matter of time. Take my sister, who was devastated by the Trump win. At Thanksgiving dinner, the moment I responded to anything my sister said about the election, she shouted, "fake news". She was so emotional, I didn't even bother trying to explain. It's the same situation with half the people I work with. They were also devastated by the Trump win and seem to relish in this "fake news" narrative, as if it proves some kind of point. I could deal with accusations of "conspiracy theorist", but in my experience, "fake news" shuts down conversations much more effectively.

The problem I see with "PizzaGate" is that probably most of the most recent brouhaha is smoke that obscures and deflects the reality of organized pedophile networks participated in and protected by political and financial elites.

The counter productiveness of "PizzaGate" is that what oozes out from internet and blogosphere niches and into broad public awareness is on first blush so over the top "fake news" that many do not take the underlying reality serious now and into the future. That is likely the very end goal of those that seeded "PizzaGate" into being and birthed the many subsequent water carriers. In the immediate, Podesta's revealed emails also came to be about "cheese pizza" rather than the multitude of other sketchy behaviors and attitudes of the leadership class which are the true nature of the WikiLeak exposure.

[Plutonia]

You do realise that David Brock, the professional liar (<--- understatement) was coordinating directly with the Clinton Campaign, seeding and promoting those stories about Trump, right? That's kind of his MO - he cut is political teeth pioneering strident smear campaigning back in the 90's + showed the pols what an effective tool tenacious mendacity could be. His minions posted CP on pro-Bernie facebook groups to get them shut down, that's how low he goes. If Brock is one Hillary's most loyal and dedicated team members, how can we think of her as an honest player or even a "more honest" player in this? Trump or Hillary, we were always going to get f*cked.

Newly Leaked Emails Reveal Unprecedented Coordination Between Hillary Campaign And Press
It is no secret that the mainstream media has a "slight" left-leaning bias in their political reporting. But newly leaked emails from Guccifer 2.0, obtained exclusively by The Intercept, reveal just how "cozy" and pervasive the Clinton campaign's relationship is with the press. From "off-the-record dinners with the key national reporters" to feeding pre-written propaganda pieces to "friendly" journalists, the new leaks reveal startling coordination between the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media.
[...]
Other documents revealed by The Intercept, listed those whom the campaign regarded as their most reliable “surrogates” – such as CNN’s Hilary Rosen and Donna Brazile, as well as Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden. The list also included "David Brock" as a "Progressive Helper"...of course, Brock has made headlines this weekend as the latest WikiLeaks dump of the "Podesta Emails" revealed that the Hillary campaign potentially coordinated directly with Brock's "Correct the Record" Super PAC, which is technically a felony (see "Podesta Emails Reveal Illegal Coordination With David Brock Super PAC")




etc: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-0 ... -and-press

[MacCruiskeen]

TL;DR - Pizzagate is debunked because Pizzagate was articulated by hysterical morons. The cultural phenomenon overtook any "investigation" before Trump was even elected.

Making a case before you know what you're looking at doesn't seem to be an effective means of raising awareness.

People have never been easier to fool. Decades of TV addiction has caused actual brain damage.

[MacCruiskeen]

Also, and above all: The damage done by the successful and still ongoing 9/11 scam is impossible to underestimate.

They got away with that, so they can indeed now get away with literally anything.

[Wombaticus Rex]

People have never been easier to fool. Decades of TV addiction has caused actual brain damage.

The comedy/tragedy dynamic couldn't be more pronounced, eh? Langley fancied themselves keepers of the secrets, the Shepherds, the managers of democracy. Now they find themselves faced with opponents who use the same techniques without any of the qualms or complexities of an Ivy League elite, without any of the calm professionalism of the MBA / Georgetown set. Vulgarians, barbarians, and hideously strong, at that. Horribly effective.

Perhaps the future belongs to such hucksters. I feel I must be naive when I think better, when I catch myself fantasizing again about "Waking People Up" or convincing them with facts or being convinced I have facts. It's a whole thing.

Perhaps the future belongs to those who know how to recruit, how to convince, and can unburden themselves of concern with with anything else. Maybe operational cover isn't the main reason intelligence agencies love to protect and co-opt cults; maybe they know that's how you identify real talent, something more useful than easily replaced commodities like politicians. Maybe nobody is going to cure this derangement, maybe our best hope is amoral charismatics who use this broken culture for something better, despite themselves. Nicer cult leaders, more pragmatic messiahs.

Probably not, though.

[seemslikeadream]

oh I have not forgot about them but it seems everyone else has

deal with the other stuff before you move on to the next face palm

[divideandconquer]

divideandconquer says:

Some sort of stockholm syndrome? Overall, people who continue to buy into the right/left paradigm trust that certain power brokers--in this case, from the left-- either have their best interest at heart, or at the very least, are the lesser of two evils. Now that it's come out that elite CP networks cross political lines--duh!--people can't let go of their sympathetic sentiments and the trust and hope they've invested in these powerful people.

I'm beginning to think this "fake news" narrative and "pizzagate" is checkmate against truth seekers. It's just a matter of time. Take my sister, who was devastated by the Trump win. At Thanksgiving dinner, the moment I responded to anything my sister said about the election, she shouted, "fake news". She was so emotional, I didn't even bother trying to explain. It's the same situation with half the people I work with. They were also devastated by the Trump win and seem to relish in this "fake news" narrative, as if it proves some kind of point. I could deal with accusations of "conspiracy theorist", but in my experience, "fake news" shuts down conversations much more effectively.

The problem I see with "PizzaGate" is that probably most of the most recent brouhaha is smoke that obscures and deflects the reality of organized pedophile networks participated in and protected by political and financial elites.

The counter productiveness of "PizzaGate" is that what oozes out from internet and blogosphere niches and into broad public awareness is on first blush so over the top "fake news" that many do not take the underlying reality serious now and into the future. That is likely the very end goal of those that seeded "PizzaGate" into being and birthed the many subsequent water carriers. In the immediate, Podesta's revealed emails also came to be about "cheese pizza" rather than the multitude of other sketchy behaviors and attitudes of the leadership class which are the true nature of the WikiLeak exposure.

I was mostly addressing the flimsy "consequences of pg discussion" argument that was offered up to shut down discussion of pizzagate here. But I agree that pizzagate was/is, in part, designed to shut down discussion of elite child porn networks now and in the future...hence, the fake news narrative that started immediately after. However, even though it's a psyop of sorts, that doesn't mean it's not real. As guru explained pizzagate is more or less a secondary or indirect psyop, insofar as it is "information that is leaked, or maybe even comes out unexpectedly, which is re-distributed after being cut with more toxic or spurious elements, and or re-contextualized by giving it to dodgy spokespeople known for their hyperbole or dubious ideological leanings." So, yes, all that people are left with is what appears to be "over the top "fake news" as they made sure not to leak hard evidence of any kind.

Slomo also made a very good point when he explained the messy process involved in the publishing of a scientific paper, a process that never sees the light of day because it's behind closed doors.

Why, then, is the suggestion that we must comport ourselves as if we are narrating a published scientific paper? When in fact the practice of the vaunted "scientific method" is actually fraught with confirmation bias and drama, right up until the associate editor of your target journal says "paper accepted for publication". The difference is that there is no way to entertain a crowd-sourced hypothesis regarding the nature of our society or our political system behind closed doors before all the BS can be filtered out. I'm not denying the existence of a huge heaping pile of BS. But a "scientific" standard is not realistic to apply in this setting at this point. (I hope I don't need to once again qualify that I strongly oppose criminal vigilante justice in response to BS, FFS...)

[barracuda]

As guru explained pizzagate is more or less a secondary or indirect psyop, insofar as it is "information that is leaked, or maybe even comes out unexpectedly, which is re-distributed after being cut with more toxic or spurious elements, and or re-contextualized by giving it to dodgy spokespeople known for their hyperbole or dubious ideological leanings."

I believe that is colloquially referred to as a "limited hangout".

Slomo also made a very good point when he explained the messy process involved in the publishing of a scientific paper, a process that never sees the light of day because it's behind closed doors.

Okay, now think about the analogous process that takes place when making art. Also "fraught with confirmation bias and drama" but mixed with liberal doses of relatively undiluted and unexamined subconscious, pure physical gesture, and (like science) whatever knowledge and understanding of precedent work deemed worthy of influence via peer review, as well as the rigor of the discipline.

In case of Abramovic's notorious "spirit cooking" wall graffiti, this would include body performance of the 1970s (including her work with Ulay); Gina Pane, the Viennese Actionism of the 1960s, Fluxus, all the way back to (and beyond) the automatic drawing experiments of the surrealists and the dada of Arthur Craven. None of this baggage makes her work more or less successful, but the history informs her work in the same way that previous scientific experiment informs a research paper, and without it, renders it unintelligible. Or even scary.

As a corollary to this, I tend to think of most of pizzagate as a form of naive folk art.

[Iamwhomiam]

People have never been easier to fool. Decades of TV addiction has caused actual brain damage.

The comedy/tragedy dynamic couldn't be more pronounced, eh? Langley fancied themselves keepers of the secrets, the Shepherds, the managers of democracy. Now they find themselves faced with opponents who use the same techniques without any of the qualms or complexities of an Ivy League elite, without any of the calm professionalism of the MBA / Georgetown set. Vulgarians, barbarians, and hideously strong, at that. Horribly effective.

Perhaps the future belongs to such hucksters. I feel I must be naive when I think better, when I catch myself fantasizing again about "Waking People Up" or convincing them with facts or being convinced I have facts. It's a whole thing.

Perhaps the future belongs to those who know how to recruit, how to convince, and can unburden themselves of concern with with anything else. Maybe operational cover isn't the main reason intelligence agencies love to protect and co-opt cults; maybe they know that's how you identify real talent, something more useful than easily replaced commodities like politicians. Maybe nobody is going to cure this derangement, maybe our best hope is amoral charismatics who use this broken culture for something better, despite themselves. Nicer cult leaders, more pragmatic messiahs.

Probably not, though.

While I don't really disagree with Mac's observation, that TV unduly influences, I can't go quite as far as he in proclaiming that it causes brain damage. I think the internet has far more caused damage and has allowed voices to be heard that would have been kept silent in times gone by, at least for the nearly 70 years television has existed. (Cut that back a decade for Aussies.)

WRex wrote,
Perhaps the future belongs to such hucksters.
<snip>
Perhaps the future belongs to those who know how to recruit, how to convince, and can unburden themselves of concern with with anything else.

That future most unfortunately has arrived.

[brekin]

As a corollary to this, I tend to think of most of pizzagate as a form of naive folk art.

Which is funny because those who know how to exploit such things can create mass naive folk reactions.
Pizzagate might just have been a 80's nostalgia rethread of Satan Panic 2.0. for political purposes.
A Stranger Things timehole to distract people.
From what?
I don't know a demagogue being made president maybe?
Not that such things don't/can't go on.
But in this case it might just have been playing on the catch all assumption "white people are crazy" used for gain.

[kelley]

as barracuda has indeed noted above, i was also going to say 'limited hangout' . . . but this story is of a slightly significant different order, unless some admission of truth appears, however tiny. maybe the 'fake news' angle serves exactly that purpose-- that lies are the truth.

and generations of tee-vee have unquestionably produced this moment, from the best objective reportage of the mid-'60s to this nascent post-reality 'reality'.

i am generally just stunned day to day. i find this distressing since it's all so obviously stupid.

[Plutonia]

I'm going to try to articulate an aspect of pizzagate that I haven't seen addressed here yet, so bear with me - it's an idea I'm still formulating:

When the Kekians/ Trumpians caught the weird pizza references in the Podesta emails and went looking, what grabbed their attention were the strong, disturbing, visuals - visuals which were amplified by captions/comments. Is this not how advertising works?

It is possible that we've all developed a groove in our brains where semiotics like that ie image + caption, slip into the groove which activates a program that outputs Consumers? Seems not likely, right?

From what I saw of the Anon War on Scientology, some Anons were very skilled in wielding this technology - image + caption - if that is what it is(?). Perhaps time spent on the imageboards is a super training ground for semioticians? That also seems likely.

So whether pizzagate was set up as a psyop to capture the public's imagination or whether it was inadvertent, it certainly has. And even if the enthusiasm of the early adopters was consumeristic, I do think that overall the zeitgeist has shifted - similar to what happened in the UK with Jimmy Saville when all those people who had watched him on TV over decades, came out of it and realised what they had seen.

tl;dr: thanks to the particular visual aspects of pizzagate, the premise of a high level pedophile ring (HLPR) went from a collective consensus of {empty set}, to a collective realisation of "It's REAL!! What was Wombat's stat? Approximately 50% of Americans surveyed?

And because of that new sense of HLPR's reality, people who never would have before, are discovering and reading walls of text about Franklin, Dutroux, Savile, Sandusky, PIE, NAMBLA etc. I understand that taking on board can be deeply destabilizing - and yes, people are hysterical - but I think overall it is a net good: Lori Handrahan who is a careful and meticulous investigator, has reported a jump in site visits of thousands per day.

A personal anecdote here: When I first came across the notion of HLPR's about 20 years ago, I almost completely rejected the idea. I couldn't because the person telling me about it was a trusted friend and activist ally. It was confounding; seemed like crazy talk. What I did was to put it aside in a mental compartment as an unanswered and unanswerable question. Ten years later I came across RigInt and began the process of accepting HLPR's as a factual reality. So even though I've had 20 years to adjust to the idea and I can't say that I've been able to be calm an unaffected - my life has been disrupted, definitely and my sleep is disturbed etc.

That's it.

Except for this on semiotics:

For most semioticians both denotation and connotation involve the use of codes. Structural semioticians who emphasise the relative arbitrariness of signifiers and social semioticians who emphasize diversity of interpretation and the importance of cultural and historical contexts are hardly likely to accept the notion of a 'literal' meaning. Denotation simply involves a broader consensus. The denotational meaning of a sign would be broadly agreed upon by members of the same culture, whereas 'nobody is ever taken to task because their connotations are incorrect', so no inventory of the connotational meanings generated by any sign could ever be complete (Barnard 1996, 83). However, there is a danger here of stressing the 'individual subjectivity' of connotation: 'intersubjective' responses are shared to some degree by members of a culture; with any individual example only a limited range of connotations would make any sense. Connotations are not purely 'personal' meanings - they are determined by the codes to which the interpreter has access. Cultural codes provide a connotational framework since they are 'organized around key oppositions and equations', each term being 'aligned with a cluster of symbolic attributes' (Silverman 1983, 36). Certain connotations would be widely recognized within a culture. Most adults in Western cultures would know that a car can connote virility or freedom.
http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Docum ... sem06.html

In other words, a Spirit Cooking Dinner, is not just a Spirit Cooking Dinner when the "connotational framework" it has been discovered within is wealth, power, corruption and child exploitation.

I'm going to read more Barthes.

[kelley]

it was walter benjamin who first spoke of the photograph's history, tracing the image from personal cult item to index of facticity. the photograph had the ability to make misery into a commodity; benjamin thought the caption might have revolutionary potential, and this matrix of word and image would have political significance.

so, yes, but not as originally imagined, plutonia. i like your reading.