I have casually assumed there are many such as slanderman who are paid provocateurs/operatives, though slanderman seems like a guy who just likes to sew chaos. I haven't seen much evidence of DC's or PO's in the substacks I haunt, but I assume the bigger substack gets, the more traffic, the more of that we will see.
I appreciate this post, found it via John Carter's telegram page, and am subscribing.
I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. He does seem to be effective if his intent is promoting chaos, I was very relieved when I realized sir isO was the same dude. Thanks for stopping by and subscribing!
Have you read up on the FBI's COINTELPRO operation in the 70s, which they used to spread divisiveness and conflict in radical left wing groups? Lots of other examples as well. I'm convinced the introduction of CRT into #Occupy was the same thing. Cass Sunstein advocated cognitive infiltration of the dissident right, which seeing how things played out there over the last few years seems to have happened and to have been successful.
As you note, it doesn't always require conspiracy. Sometimes trolls are just assholes. Other times, the conspiracy isn't an official conspiracy. Flat earthers or no-virus people can organize on discord servers, and raid comment sections. The comments under Winston's piece had that smell about them.
It seems to me that there are two criteria that can be applied to identify division catalysts.
First is monomania. They always seem to have an idée fixe from which they are incapable or unwilling to deviate. That obsession will almost always be some outrageous claim about physical reality - there were no planes in 9/11, the Moon landing was fake, the Earth is flat, viruses don't exist, etc. - which is in flat contradiction with (generally easily checked) empirical data. This serves as bait by triggering the instinct to argue with people who are wrong on the internet.
The second and most important trait is tone. Someone can say something you think is nuts and say it nicely. Instead, they invariably open with abusive remarks. This also serves as bait, arousing an emotional response: you're motivated not just to defend the idea that they're challenging, but your character and sacred honor.
Both forms of bait are hard to pass by, which is exactly what they rely on. Once one engages, they escalate the abusive tone, while simply refusing to concede any points of logic or evidence. This is infuriating on multiple levels, which draws people further in. Before long the comments thread is permanently poisoned by the angry exchanges, and one has had potentially hours of energy wasted in an activity as productive than masturbation.
What degree conspiracy vs system play a role is hard to say. I suspect in many cases the communities that form around these monomanias are seeded as a deliberate divide et impera tactic. Later, those who get drawn in are simply useful idiots with compatible psychological profiles who adapt well to a group culture that engages with outgroups combatively. This has two useful effects, first by sowing discord in dissident communities, second by associating those communities with loony ideas. Psychologically healthy people don't want to swim in a sewer, so they'll avoid the dissident groups in question and the groups then cease growing and begin to shrink.
As to how to handle it, the only real answers are non-engagement and moderation, the former when commenting on others' platforms, the latter when managing one's own. Unfortunately this problem will be with us for as long as we have the Internet, because it's been around since the ur days of IRC and BBSs.
Thank you for taking the time to articulate this so clearly. This is what I'm trying to say. The purpose of this article is to highlight a novel strategy for attempting to bring well-meaning "useful idiots" into the fold. Not by necessarily convincing them to abandon their heterodox position that may or may not be empirically supportable, but by focusing on the fact that we have higher priorities. I think we should all be able to argue about what is and isn't a priority. What proved to me that slandermen was a DC was his unwillingness to even touch this argument. Unless someone is acting in bad faith or hopelessly incompetent, they should be willing to argue about what is a priority. Given their monomania, there is an implicit promise that if they convince you that their issue is the priority (something they should damn well practice if they do really believe it is the most important issue), then you'll be willing to hear direct arguments about their issue of choice.
Since this process took so much damn time in this instance just to prove something to myself, the moral of the story might be what you eloquently capture thus "the only real answers are non-engagement and moderation, the former when commenting on others' platforms, the latter when managing one's own."
BUT, I do like to think that some can be brought into the fold or at least inoculated against becoming consumed with monomania bouncing around like a chlorine molecule in the ozone layer.
"“Wrecking” is any behaviour that seeks to disrupt, subvert, undermine, or sabotage the normal functioning of the sub, or sow discord among the community.
This can be done though trolling, concern trolling, excessive purity testing, dog whistling, sockpuppeting, raiding, brigading, slandering, backseat moderating, impersonating, and so on.
Users are free to criticise the sub as a whole only if it is done in good faith and with supporting evidence."
That's similar to why I stopped hanging out with the left. Well, that and the relentless advance of woke. I might have stuck around longer if the dirtbag left had manifested faster, but I bailed back in like 2014.
Agree with the comments below about civility. It goes beyond politeness -- it is the willingness also to listen and engage others, and not merely react or respond. That said, from evolutionary biology to game theory and more, we learn that to have a functioning community requires pro-social punishment. Otherwise, cooperation becomes disadvantageous, and can break down almost entirely. For "keyboard communities", the balance can be tricky. Particularly when we are faced with the necessity of building alliances, establishing new networks.
These were the 12 red flags for an in-person community: "typical behavioral patterns of infiltrators/agents provocateurs." But some of them might apply to the communities you all have been discussing. Felt this was too useful not to share:
1. New to the community, yet ignores existing safety standards. Eager to take on sudden leadership roles.
2. Burned bridges or untraceable ties from prior communities. Lacking references.
3. Moves quickly through different orgs and leaves a wake of discourse or drama.
4. Charismatic/zealous, but acts without conviction.
5. Grandiose plans of actions that are highly illegal/risky, but they want YOU to do it.
6. Gravitates towards other abusers and grifters.
7. Poor opsec/infosec, lack of interest in protecting comrades’ anonymity.
8. Suspicious social media presence – new accounts, high # of follower w/ low engagement, or circular engagement within a few similar accounts.
9. Spending doesn’t match stated source of income.
10. Lashes out and makes accusations when confronted.
11. Prioritizing personal financial or reputational gain. Grifting/profiteering, lack of transparency, centering their own story or “brand.” Eager to talk to press.
12. [P]olice, or fed connections (personal, professional, familial).
"Whether by virtue of system or conspiracy, whether engaging in good faith, or bad, they must be treated as enemies if they insist on pursuing conditions antithetical to strategic political success of the dissident community. "
Agreed
I find those who claim their is no virus really aim to derail the conversation you are trying to have. Its like arguing with people about economics and then they start turning the conversation into CRT and identity politics. The conversation ends up being like a corporate biz meeting where lots of things get discussed, nothing is agreed upon and then nothing gets done but everyone who doesn't think about it smiles and pats themselves on the back.
Haha! I am inclined to believe that routine unproductive meetings are a key feature managerial class hegemony. I can't imagine how such a thing could survive in a truly free market.
He's also the father of the vaccine. The dude is far from perfect, and susceptible to manipulation by those who offer him ways to flatter his ego. Michael Flynn had a great 5min where he says it looks like a professional psyop to him, and he is a subject matter expert, so there's that too.
He said it looks like a professional psyop... But didn't say he disagrees with it, or that he isn't privy to it.
Most people who shit all over the Qanon.... Project? Movement? (Whatever the fuck do you even call it), have never even gone to the imageboard where all the work is being done (or even know how to find it) and seen the work being done first hand. It's hilariously kludgy, hard to keep up with, and impressive as fuck for the amount of OSINT they generate. Plus they used to periodically post boobs, even had a few anons post theirs I believe.
The main reason I'm inclined to believe it started as a psyop, even though I'm sure some parts of it have taken on a life of their own, is because I ask cui bono and think the answer is the deep state. I also generally ignore intel streams that routinely make predictions that don't pan out. I follow people who make predictions and they come true, and when they don't, they don't try to make excuses. People like, say, Robert Barnes.
The behavior of these no-virus people was so aggressive and belligerent that I assumed they were a psyoping...what were the odds that every one on substack was an asshole?
The recent C&C comments section comes as handy illustration of what you’re talking about. A good chunk of deeply hurt vociferous peeps just won’t listen to calm voice of reason, and they are cheered on by hordes of approving hearts. The rash gleeful gloating is almost frightening. Hang all the perpetrators first, better by their feet, only then we could mayhaps talk. Strategic thinking woefully fails to register with ‘em. Hierarchy of goals? What hierarchy?! Justice über alles! If we perish in pursuing pies in the sky, so be it, doesn’t matter a fuck 🤦
The righteous indignation is definitely not a malady ravaging exclusively woke domain, it spreads like bush fire across entire political spectrum. Too sweet to resist 😳 Forget von Bismarck's the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best. Who cares.
I haven't always taken the time to be courteous, but right now the stakes are too high not to. Communication is rate limited and challenging as it is. Failure to meet the minimum standards of civility in discourse will not get us the outcome we desire. For those engaging in good faith, it is always worth the effort.
Comment civility is absolutely non-negotiable. I have people disagree with me (and others) in my comments all the time. That's healthy and fun. I've only gone off on people a couple of times, and that's when they're being jerks. Doesn't take much of that to poison the well and turn a life giving spring into toxic seepage.
I have casually assumed there are many such as slanderman who are paid provocateurs/operatives, though slanderman seems like a guy who just likes to sew chaos. I haven't seen much evidence of DC's or PO's in the substacks I haunt, but I assume the bigger substack gets, the more traffic, the more of that we will see.
I appreciate this post, found it via John Carter's telegram page, and am subscribing.
I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. He does seem to be effective if his intent is promoting chaos, I was very relieved when I realized sir isO was the same dude. Thanks for stopping by and subscribing!
Have you read up on the FBI's COINTELPRO operation in the 70s, which they used to spread divisiveness and conflict in radical left wing groups? Lots of other examples as well. I'm convinced the introduction of CRT into #Occupy was the same thing. Cass Sunstein advocated cognitive infiltration of the dissident right, which seeing how things played out there over the last few years seems to have happened and to have been successful.
As you note, it doesn't always require conspiracy. Sometimes trolls are just assholes. Other times, the conspiracy isn't an official conspiracy. Flat earthers or no-virus people can organize on discord servers, and raid comment sections. The comments under Winston's piece had that smell about them.
It seems to me that there are two criteria that can be applied to identify division catalysts.
First is monomania. They always seem to have an idée fixe from which they are incapable or unwilling to deviate. That obsession will almost always be some outrageous claim about physical reality - there were no planes in 9/11, the Moon landing was fake, the Earth is flat, viruses don't exist, etc. - which is in flat contradiction with (generally easily checked) empirical data. This serves as bait by triggering the instinct to argue with people who are wrong on the internet.
The second and most important trait is tone. Someone can say something you think is nuts and say it nicely. Instead, they invariably open with abusive remarks. This also serves as bait, arousing an emotional response: you're motivated not just to defend the idea that they're challenging, but your character and sacred honor.
Both forms of bait are hard to pass by, which is exactly what they rely on. Once one engages, they escalate the abusive tone, while simply refusing to concede any points of logic or evidence. This is infuriating on multiple levels, which draws people further in. Before long the comments thread is permanently poisoned by the angry exchanges, and one has had potentially hours of energy wasted in an activity as productive than masturbation.
What degree conspiracy vs system play a role is hard to say. I suspect in many cases the communities that form around these monomanias are seeded as a deliberate divide et impera tactic. Later, those who get drawn in are simply useful idiots with compatible psychological profiles who adapt well to a group culture that engages with outgroups combatively. This has two useful effects, first by sowing discord in dissident communities, second by associating those communities with loony ideas. Psychologically healthy people don't want to swim in a sewer, so they'll avoid the dissident groups in question and the groups then cease growing and begin to shrink.
As to how to handle it, the only real answers are non-engagement and moderation, the former when commenting on others' platforms, the latter when managing one's own. Unfortunately this problem will be with us for as long as we have the Internet, because it's been around since the ur days of IRC and BBSs.
Thank you for taking the time to articulate this so clearly. This is what I'm trying to say. The purpose of this article is to highlight a novel strategy for attempting to bring well-meaning "useful idiots" into the fold. Not by necessarily convincing them to abandon their heterodox position that may or may not be empirically supportable, but by focusing on the fact that we have higher priorities. I think we should all be able to argue about what is and isn't a priority. What proved to me that slandermen was a DC was his unwillingness to even touch this argument. Unless someone is acting in bad faith or hopelessly incompetent, they should be willing to argue about what is a priority. Given their monomania, there is an implicit promise that if they convince you that their issue is the priority (something they should damn well practice if they do really believe it is the most important issue), then you'll be willing to hear direct arguments about their issue of choice.
Since this process took so much damn time in this instance just to prove something to myself, the moral of the story might be what you eloquently capture thus "the only real answers are non-engagement and moderation, the former when commenting on others' platforms, the latter when managing one's own."
BUT, I do like to think that some can be brought into the fold or at least inoculated against becoming consumed with monomania bouncing around like a chlorine molecule in the ozone layer.
"“Wrecking” is any behaviour that seeks to disrupt, subvert, undermine, or sabotage the normal functioning of the sub, or sow discord among the community.
This can be done though trolling, concern trolling, excessive purity testing, dog whistling, sockpuppeting, raiding, brigading, slandering, backseat moderating, impersonating, and so on.
Users are free to criticise the sub as a whole only if it is done in good faith and with supporting evidence."
Good stuff.
That's similar to why I stopped hanging out with the left. Well, that and the relentless advance of woke. I might have stuck around longer if the dirtbag left had manifested faster, but I bailed back in like 2014.
Agree with the comments below about civility. It goes beyond politeness -- it is the willingness also to listen and engage others, and not merely react or respond. That said, from evolutionary biology to game theory and more, we learn that to have a functioning community requires pro-social punishment. Otherwise, cooperation becomes disadvantageous, and can break down almost entirely. For "keyboard communities", the balance can be tricky. Particularly when we are faced with the necessity of building alliances, establishing new networks.
@ Grant. Your post, which is excellent, made me recall the one Revolver report on Jan 6th. https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/
These were the 12 red flags for an in-person community: "typical behavioral patterns of infiltrators/agents provocateurs." But some of them might apply to the communities you all have been discussing. Felt this was too useful not to share:
1. New to the community, yet ignores existing safety standards. Eager to take on sudden leadership roles.
2. Burned bridges or untraceable ties from prior communities. Lacking references.
3. Moves quickly through different orgs and leaves a wake of discourse or drama.
4. Charismatic/zealous, but acts without conviction.
5. Grandiose plans of actions that are highly illegal/risky, but they want YOU to do it.
6. Gravitates towards other abusers and grifters.
7. Poor opsec/infosec, lack of interest in protecting comrades’ anonymity.
8. Suspicious social media presence – new accounts, high # of follower w/ low engagement, or circular engagement within a few similar accounts.
9. Spending doesn’t match stated source of income.
10. Lashes out and makes accusations when confronted.
11. Prioritizing personal financial or reputational gain. Grifting/profiteering, lack of transparency, centering their own story or “brand.” Eager to talk to press.
12. [P]olice, or fed connections (personal, professional, familial).
I think this is a very helpful checklist, thanks for sharing!
"Whether by virtue of system or conspiracy, whether engaging in good faith, or bad, they must be treated as enemies if they insist on pursuing conditions antithetical to strategic political success of the dissident community. "
Agreed
I find those who claim their is no virus really aim to derail the conversation you are trying to have. Its like arguing with people about economics and then they start turning the conversation into CRT and identity politics. The conversation ends up being like a corporate biz meeting where lots of things get discussed, nothing is agreed upon and then nothing gets done but everyone who doesn't think about it smiles and pats themselves on the back.
Haha! I am inclined to believe that routine unproductive meetings are a key feature managerial class hegemony. I can't imagine how such a thing could survive in a truly free market.
One problem with Qanon being a DC psyop is that Trump recently reposted a picture of himself with a Q pin on his lapel.
https://www.newslooks.com/tag/trump-reposted-an-image-of-himself-wearing-a-q-lapel-pin/
So, there's that... But it was only a "repost", so he maintains plausible deniability, and allows everyone disinclined an easy out.
He's also the father of the vaccine. The dude is far from perfect, and susceptible to manipulation by those who offer him ways to flatter his ego. Michael Flynn had a great 5min where he says it looks like a professional psyop to him, and he is a subject matter expert, so there's that too.
He said it looks like a professional psyop... But didn't say he disagrees with it, or that he isn't privy to it.
Most people who shit all over the Qanon.... Project? Movement? (Whatever the fuck do you even call it), have never even gone to the imageboard where all the work is being done (or even know how to find it) and seen the work being done first hand. It's hilariously kludgy, hard to keep up with, and impressive as fuck for the amount of OSINT they generate. Plus they used to periodically post boobs, even had a few anons post theirs I believe.
The main reason I'm inclined to believe it started as a psyop, even though I'm sure some parts of it have taken on a life of their own, is because I ask cui bono and think the answer is the deep state. I also generally ignore intel streams that routinely make predictions that don't pan out. I follow people who make predictions and they come true, and when they don't, they don't try to make excuses. People like, say, Robert Barnes.
It's ABSOLUTELY a psyop. The questions are: Who started it, who maintains it, and most importantly: Is it truthful and effective in it's stated goals?
IMO, it's a counter-psyop to the larger, intergenerational, centuries-long psyop against the world, and the West in particular.
-=-
Covid 19 vaccine damage repair protocols:
https://davenarby.substack.com/p/covid-19-vaccine-damage-repair-protocol
In other words "No enemies to the right, no friends to the left" ;)
Searched that and found an article in The American Conservative, looks like what I'm trying to get at.
The behavior of these no-virus people was so aggressive and belligerent that I assumed they were a psyoping...what were the odds that every one on substack was an asshole?
The recent C&C comments section comes as handy illustration of what you’re talking about. A good chunk of deeply hurt vociferous peeps just won’t listen to calm voice of reason, and they are cheered on by hordes of approving hearts. The rash gleeful gloating is almost frightening. Hang all the perpetrators first, better by their feet, only then we could mayhaps talk. Strategic thinking woefully fails to register with ‘em. Hierarchy of goals? What hierarchy?! Justice über alles! If we perish in pursuing pies in the sky, so be it, doesn’t matter a fuck 🤦
The righteous indignation is definitely not a malady ravaging exclusively woke domain, it spreads like bush fire across entire political spectrum. Too sweet to resist 😳 Forget von Bismarck's the art of the possible, the attainable—the art of the next best. Who cares.
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/c-and-c-news-wednesday-november-2/comments
I haven't always taken the time to be courteous, but right now the stakes are too high not to. Communication is rate limited and challenging as it is. Failure to meet the minimum standards of civility in discourse will not get us the outcome we desire. For those engaging in good faith, it is always worth the effort.
Comment civility is absolutely non-negotiable. I have people disagree with me (and others) in my comments all the time. That's healthy and fun. I've only gone off on people a couple of times, and that's when they're being jerks. Doesn't take much of that to poison the well and turn a life giving spring into toxic seepage.