David Brock, Invasion 4Chan, the Alt-Right, & Pizzagate

[guruilla]

As did I, Norton.

Guruilla wrote,
We know that now; what would it have looked like if someone had started pointing to Saville's weird behaviors, jokes, insinuations, ten, twenty years before anyone came forward?

Saville's behaviours were pointed out 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago, either after being directly observed or as complaints were leveled by accusers at the time.

Really? Did you grow up in the UK during Savile's heyday?

I did, and what you are saying is 100% inaccurate. There may have been complaints that weren't followed up; there may have been rumors within insider circles. But there was nothing that we the public heard about, at all, until after he died.

How's that for bullshit, ignorance, & denial?

[Burnt Hill]

As did I, Norton.

Guruilla wrote,
We know that now; what would it have looked like if someone had started pointing to Saville's weird behaviors, jokes, insinuations, ten, twenty years before anyone came forward?

Saville's behaviours were pointed out 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago, either after being directly observed or as complaints were leveled by accusers at the time.

Really? Did you grow up in the UK during Savile's heyday?


I did, and what you are saying is 100% inaccurate. There may have been complaints that weren't followed up; there may have been rumors within insider circles. But there was nothing that we the public heard about, at all, until after he died.

How's that for bullshit, ignorance, & denial?

Allegations against Saville started in the 60's maybe even the 50's.
He made incriminating statements in his autobiography that came out in the 70s.
Behaviors that were pointed out. Real red flags.
The Fact that News of the World didn't follow up is irrelevant and doesn't justify 4chans witch hunt.

[Burnt Hill]

And to slomos excellent point that proof in science is messy.
Yes, but at least they are scientists making the mess.
4chan are not journalists or investigators, in that sense.

[Iamwhomiam]

"How's that for bullshit, ignorance, & denial?"

That's unwarranted guruilla.

During the height of the scandal I read many reports of earlier allegations that were reported. I don't know how old you are, so you have me at a disadvantage. I am not your enemy. Because you didn't learn about it does not mean he wasn't ever reported and those reports related in the press. Pedophilia was rarely ever mentioned in decades past, that I admit. I'm sure you have relations who were well aware of his activities, just as you remained ignorant of their aberrant proclivities as you've related.

deleted typo

deleted abhorrent and replaced with aberrant.

[guruilla]

"How's that for bullshit, ignorance, & denial?"

That's unwarranted guruilla.

During the height of the scandal I read many reports of earlier allegations that were reported. I don't know how old you are, so you have me at a disadvantage. I am not your enemy. Because you didn't learn about it does not mean he wasn't ever reported and those reports related in the press. Pedophilia was rarely ever mentioned in decades past, that I admit. I'm sure you have relations who were well aware of his activities, just as you remained ignorant of their aberrant proclivities as you've related.

deleted typo

deleted abhorrent and replaced with aberrant.

I do not consider it unwarranted. You were talking with rank ignorance about something that you know, or should do, has had a direct impact on my life from childhood on, and in fact you are still doing it. If I had "relations who were well aware of his activities," that's almost tantamount to saying they were in some sense complicit with them (which is what I had to consider in "Occult Yorkshire"). It's hardly evidence for the argument you are trying to make; quite the reverse.

Do a little research, please. Your idea about JS is probably based on reading this board. Had you even heard of him before 2012? Consider that & then apply that knowledge to your comments about Pizzagate and the lack of victims. Consider also that there are people to this day who maintain JS is innocent. That's how beloved he was.

Underestimating the power of people's denial only sustains a world of hurt for everyone.

[Burnt Hill]

"But there was nothing that we the public heard about, at all, until after he died."
and
"has had a direct impact on my life from childhood on"

Saville is the topic that started this recent brou ha ha, no?

[Iamwhomiam]

And laying blame falsely is helpful to whom?

I don't believe I mentioned a "lack of victims" although I did say proof was lacking that could substantiate the truthfulness of the allegations, ala when did you stop beating your wife.

See how easy it is? "If I had "relations who were well aware of his activities," that's almost tantamount to saying they were in some sense complicit with them (which is what I had to consider in "Occult Yorkshire")."

No, it is not. According to what my poor memory can recall, you shared with us intergenerational pedophilia occurred within your immediate household. That one elite pedophile knows of another does not mean they associate with them during their times of perversion, or that they are somehow complicit in that persons activities. What I was trying to express is that while you might not have known about Saville, others in your family very well might have. I asked your age to judge your period of exposure to Saville the celebrity. When did you first learn of Saville's existence? In the 80s, 90s 70s 60s?

You are in the first person now doing the exact same thing as I claim the pg story has done to Alefantis - proclaiming guilt by association.

I stand by my earlier statements regarding knowledge of Jim 'ill fix it foul proclivities with infants, children and cadavers.

I'm going to step out of this conversation now. I've said all I feel I needed to say about this awful subject for now. Sorry if I hold a different viewpoint than you do, guruilla.

[MacCruiskeen]

Cross-posting: Link to a new and "pretty disturbing" David Brock interview/meltdown on Politico.

[OP ED]

My phone won't cooperate with my attempt to listen.

[MacCruiskeen]

My phone won't cooperate with my attempt to listen.

Weird. I can't play it either. Every other one of their interviews is up at the Politico podcast website:

https://soundcloud.com/off-message

... but not the Brock interview. Or at least not yet.

Have they "made the decision to pull it"?

[Spiro C. Thiery]

I believe analysing this segment based solely upon one's view of #Pizzagate is particularly wrongheaded here at RI. It's quite troubling, actually.

What Colbert manages to do here has implications far beyond the links to circumstantial creepiness posted who-knows-how-many-places on this forum. He begins by setting a tone, making the same tired claim that he and John Stewart made for years on their previous programs: "We are not news, we are entertainment." First, this is disingenuous because such a substantial portion of his show is dedicated to current events not of the entertainment world. The fact that he riffs on them with jokes does not preclude the shaping of analysis that takes place night in and night out. The bulk of his guests even come from the world of politics and punditry.

So to start off the segment, he uses faux self-deprecation to make it sound as if the self-referential details to come should at no point make one believe that his show has any part in shaping public opinion.

Then, throughout his ridicule of our pet blowhard, Alex Jones, he establishes his broadcast from the Clinton Foundation event, as well as Jimmy Fallon's Slow Jam segment with Obama, as just more entertainment and comedy. What the general public don't take away from this, however, is how much this trend of humanising politicians and giving them platforms to discuss various policies away from sceptical questioning, makes his viewers think they are smarter and better informed. Journalism has pretty much already abdicated their standards, this is just another step in the wrong direction. Satirists and comedians have no business giving public servants this platform. It is propaganda, pure and simple.

Finally, to finish off the segment, right before we head off to see what products to buy, he puts Alex Jones and Wikileaks in the same rhetorical stew of a sentence. He completely ignores the fact that Wikileaks is not responsible for how the information in the emails is interpreted, misinterpreted or otherwise. The biggest takeaway from the emails being framed within the fake news hullabaloo should be the glaring distinction that the CONTENT OF THE LEAKED EMAILS IS NOT FAKE.

Now, Colbert is either smart or he's much less intelligent than people give him credit for. If he's smart, he knows he's a propagandist. If he doesn't know that, he's a useful idiot. Here is a classic example how #pizzagate is a yuuuge distraction.

Warning: this video may be offensive to some:

Well, maybe offensive to the DEEP DIGGERS like you who are so apprised of the organized EVIL of all media that you've lost any sense of proportion, not to mention your sense of humour. I found Colbert rather refreshing there.

[MacCruiskeen]

^^Great post, Spiro. The smugness of these celebrity clowns is matched only by their disingenuousness - and their truly massive wealth and influence, goddammit. They did not get where they are today by being in any way radical or any kind of threat to power. On the contrary. Their whole raison d'etre is to bamboozle and intimidate the naive into imagining themselves sophisticated.

From the excellent LorenzoA:

Yes, Throw the Celebrity Clowns Away

Posted on December 9, 2016

Regular readers will know that one of the most unfair and purist things I do on this blog is to quote people like John Oliver and Jon Stewart accurately when they say transparently power-serving things. It might be because I have a bad habit of waking up on the wrong side of the bed, or it may be because:

- Their progressive reputations are entirely the result of savvy marketing, and these people are actually centrist or right-wing liberals, or worse (and this isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a fact evidenced by the power-serving and reactionary things that they say).

- Everything they tell their viewers about the world comes from their moderate-conservative politics, and their tepid, incrementalist “solutions” aren’t little stepping-stones on the path to progress, but are distractions that lead people towards elite-approved dead-ends (and it could only ever be this way because, as basic media literacy would dictate, they are the employees of corporations for whom more profits are the sole and paramount goal).

- Whatever one wants to say about their calls for superficial domestic reforms, when it comes to American foreign policy they hew closely to the US State Department line (and again, it could only ever be this way, since both they and the State Department serve the same owners).

- That by virtue of their progressive reputations, liberals are more likely to believe the reactionary trash that these celebrities will inevitably say than they would if it came from a different salesperson (for example, progressives are more inclined to believe a vile “be pro-black and pro-cop” equivocation coming from Daily Show host Trevor Noah than they are a substantively identical message coming from his fellow TV host, Tea Party-Republican and Trump-supporter Mike Rowe).

Maybe it’s because I’m attached to the idea that radical actually means something, so when a high-status liberal designates another doctrinaire liberal as a “radical” voice, I feel a vested interest in making sure that “radical” doesn’t get redefined to mean “popular.” Either way, I document these things not only because I enjoy trashing these people (although I do), but because they are utter frauds who need to be torn down.

This is a hard enough job because [...]

- continues at the link: https://lorenzoae.wordpress.com/2016/12 ... owns-away/

[guruilla]

That's a relief, thanks SCT. Seeing Stephen Colbert getting the thumbs up at RI was a new low ~ or is that high? ~ in the annals of personal cognitive dissonance.

The world that Brock built....

Haven't been able to listen to the audio yet; seems it's available now, tho I wonder if the glitch was an opportunity to edit it?

[Iamwhomiam]

Guruilla, I was hoping to read a response from you.

Spiro, I agree with your commentary being "spot on." Thank you for that.

[Plutonia]

Audio is working for me here:

David Brock blasts Brooklyn, ‘animals’ in press
The Democrats’ dark-arts master questions the Clinton campaign’s toughness, declares war on media.
By Glenn Thrush

12/13/16 09:44 AM EST
There aren’t many people on the planet who hate Donald Trump – and love Hillary Clinton – with the Savonarola intensity of a David Brock.

But the Democratic dark-arts impresario has come to believe, in the harsh light of last month’s bitter loss, that Clinton’s biggest problem was simply not being more like Trump, at least when it came to dealing with the press. But in an extended clear-the-decks session on POLITICO’s “Off Message” podcast, he aired a long list of grievances against Clinton’s Brooklyn-based campaign for not defending her forcefully enough.

And he thinks Democrats should adopt another GOP strategy: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s declaration that Republicans should rebuild their party by fighting everything Barack Obama proposed to make him a one-term president.

etc
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/d ... dia-232562