Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by nonhocapito »

Farcevalue wrote:There could be a lot of gray in this area. We had Bush saying, "Let us on tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories." We have Cass Sunstein and Bill Clinton wanting to censor conspiracy theories (How day-yuhr yew!) All this is very public and acceptable to the MSM, it's not hard to imagine a cadre of disinformation artists doing the work of the dear leaders out of sincere, however misguided, belief. They may not be "in the loop" but may shill for the powerz out of a sense of duty to thwart the evil conspiracy theorists. And of course there are those who either truly believe, or more likely IMO, know but by vehemently denying, can refrain from admitting they know. And of course like you said, those under omerta, real insiders who are doing it knowingly as part of the dark secret who will never reveal themselves. It's the rank and file that surprise me. Like Richard Pryor on cheating: "You gonna believe me or your lyin' eyes?"
Good points. But the task of shill is a fundamentally malicious, deceiving one: it requires one to lie constantly in order to unseemingly sell something that nobody wants to buy. In this sense, I find it hard to believe that this task can be taken upon by people out of the loop who spontaneously decide to pollute free speech, doing it by the books as if they were trained for it.

I remember reading of zionists from different countries who, out of a sense of allegiance to Israel, in their free time join groups that try to steer and hijack online discussions, to promote pro-israel issues (there was a link posted on the forum about this a while back); but even these are not really shills (they are just bad citizens of their own countries, at most): What they do they do it directly (only not spontaneously, but upon a call from their group), they are not instructed to pretend to be of the opposite mind, they are not trained in confusion techniques, trolling techniques etc.
Those who do that, I think someone trains them and supervises them in order to make sure they will not back out of it and "squeal"...
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by fbenario »

nonhocapito wrote:I remember reading of zionists from different countries who, out of a sense of allegiance to Israel, in their free time join groups that try to steer and hijack online discussions, to promote pro-israel issues (there was a link posted on the forum about this a while back); but even these are not really shills (they are just bad citizens of their own countries, at most): What they do they do it directly (only not spontaneously, but upon a call from their group), they are not instructed to pretend to be of the opposite mind, they are not trained in confusion techniques, trolling techniques etc.
A subtle but critically important distinction to keep in mind. There is a vast difference between some moronic bastard expressing contempt and disregard for the truth because of his evil heart, and someone paid to further an evil reality and worldview. Yep, love of money in the end is the root of real evil.

A very elegantly reasoned analysis, Nonho.
Utah
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:43 am

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by Utah »

nonhocapito wrote:I agree that the story shared by disinpho above is probably not really a believable story. I think shills are recruited in a more intelligent and safe way.

They probably come with existing connections to: governmental agencies; the military; masonic circles; zionist circles; propaganda agencies; PR agencies; etc.
They cannot be "loose". No way. I don't think they would hire someone from the streets. And the fact that this story is out there explains why. This is something that cannot happen and, in fact, does not happen.

There are enough networks and circles out there to fish people from. I don't think we have a real perception of how much the vow of silence can be enforced and is respected in certain circles. The hired shills must be individuals who would have too much to lose, can be blackmailed, or, alternatively, who are brainwashed and fanatical enough to be easily controlled.
Anyone you pick, must be guaranteed by someone above, some connection. In the mafia it works this way, I don't see why it should work differently for the job of "shill", that has all the characteristics of a mafia assignment, albeit in an "intellectual" flavor.

"Shill" for all we know could be just a step in a career that can one day give someone the highly paid role of "relative of victim" or "president of the USA" in future assignments. :P
Makes sense. I believe that the "internet shill" job is likely some sort of entry-level position for intelligence agencies, probably with an official title like "cyber-communications officer" or something along those lines. The "confession" story reads more like a piece of amateur conspiracy fiction than a genuine story or serious attempt at meaningful disinfo...
Utah
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:43 am

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by Utah »

Even after ten years of wading through all the shillery around 911, I am not so paranoid that I think every moron that disagrees with me on 911 is a 'paid internet shill'.

However, I feel that I might actually be facing real-live shills on the DI forum. I recently joined over there, to contribute to two important and recent thread topics:
"September clues": http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=206452
and "victims": http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=198244

So, poster "denton" joined about a week after me, and seems to instantly appear and undermine anything that supports or validates the key concepts of "September Clues" or "vic-sims". As of today, a search of his post history shows that every single one of his posts defends the 911 hoax, and only on these two topics, plus one other: WTC 7. Maybe I am getting a little paranoid, but it seems like a interesting "hobby" this guy has. However, to be fair, I also just joined, and only post pro-vicsim and pro-SC, and nobody paying is me.

Senior member "don'tdrinkyourmilk" trolls for the official 911 story, like it is his mission in life, effectively polluting the forum with meaningless crap. :puke:

If anyone has time to have a look at what I'm talking about,what do you think? Are these real people, who are just extremely gullible and bored? Are they more likely 'real' shills? Probably doesn't matter, but I'd love to hear other opinions or experiences...
MsQ
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by MsQ »

Utah wrote: If anyone has time to have a look at what I'm talking about,what do you think? Are these real people, who are just extremely gullible and bored? Are they more likely 'real' shills? Probably doesn't matter, but I'd love to hear other opinions or experiences...
I've had a bit of a look, but who knows. A little form column A, and a little from column B...
I'm interested in a couple of other controversial issues, (health related,) and have encountered the same types of problems with these sorts of people popping up all over the web where the subjects are discussed. Sometimes, they have extended themselves outside of the internet and into the real world with their organised opposition and threats to individuals. Whilst it's often thought that some of these people are payed to do this, and I'm sure some are. I think there are plenty of people who get so sucked into the hype they can't help but act like online professional pests. I think they bounce ideas off of each other and rev each other on and that makes it ok and more exciting. Some people are just very close minded. And some people will oppose anything simply because they wern't the ones to think of the idea first.
I'm sure plenty of the posters really, honestly, truly believe that their viewpoint is the only valid side of any argument though, and that they are doing a public service when they try to silence, belittle or ridicule anyone who has an alternate point of view. I do sometimes wonder though if some people argue so extensively that they're right because they're scared to consider that they may be wrong. If they did properly investigate points of view that are different to theirs and discover some valid points, then maybe those points would undermine a whole bunch of other things in their life?
I think 9/11 is a bit like that for some people. To accept the evidence presented by September Clues, most people have to admit that back in 2001 they watched the "live footage" and believed every single bit of what they saw for X amount of years. Then that leads to more questions and things can become complicated :D Whilst some of us can admit to being gullible and stupid for doing this, for others it's a really big thing.
Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by Farcevalue »

nonhocapito wrote:
...they are not instructed to pretend to be of the opposite mind, they are not trained in confusion techniques, trolling techniques etc.
Those who do that, I think someone trains them and supervises them in order to make sure they will not back out of it and "squeal"...
This caught my eye, and from what I know of the "formerly supporter - now defector" crowd, they fit more with your definition. I guess I was lumping the unable to cope in with the Machiavellian trained operative types. Keep your enemies closer and all that. I have learned a bit about deviousness in browsing these forums, sometimes the faux supportive subtle approach can be more effective than the ad hominems which are easier to dismiss.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by lux »

Utah wrote:
Senior member "don'tdrinkyourmilk" trolls for the official 911 story, like it is his mission in life, effectively polluting the forum with meaningless crap. :puke:

If anyone has time to have a look at what I'm talking about,what do you think? Are these real people, who are just extremely gullible and bored? Are they more likely 'real' shills? Probably doesn't matter, but I'd love to hear other opinions or experiences...
I used to post on DI. My opinion:The DI forum is Shill Central. It is a haven for shills where they are protected and backed up by shill mods.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by fbenario »

MsQ wrote:I'm sure plenty of the posters really, honestly, truly believe that their viewpoint is the only valid side of any argument though, and that they are doing a public service when they try to silence, belittle or ridicule anyone who has an alternate point of view.
Excellent. This is one of the main reasons perp forums like 911blogger prohibit discussion of media fakery. It's not enough for them to be certain they've figured 9/11 out, they're unwilling to permit any 'unapproved' theory to muddy their waters as the official opposition - or their own 'clarity' of understanding..

Plus they're personally all a bunch of f**king cowards.
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by nonhocapito »

fbenario wrote:This is one of the main reasons perp forums like 911blogger prohibit discussion of media fakery. It's not enough for them to be certain they've figured 9/11 out, they're unwilling to permit any 'unapproved' theory to muddy their waters as the official opposition - or their own 'clarity' of understanding.
When Alex Jones pronounced his anathema against "no planers" who "believed in holograms" and were meant to "discredit the movement", he knew very well what he was doing. He lumped for his followers and listeners all possible lines that lead to fakery making them into one absurd, unpresentable enemy very easy to recognize, and against which they could actively do something about.

He knew that the desire to "do something" and "be active" was in fact continuously frustrated by Alex Jones himself, able to harness these energies to have people buy his products, but never clear as to what was to happen in our lives and how the things could change in our society; there was nothing better than to give the people a scapegoat target to focus their energies on, managing to keep the revelation of media fakery at bay at the same time. This is why, I think, this ban has worked so well and, amazingly, still works today in certain circles where people still censors the topic in good faith, convinced that it is "damaging the movement". :rolleyes:
Utah
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:43 am

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by Utah »

nonhocapito wrote:
fbenario wrote:This is one of the main reasons perp forums like 911blogger prohibit discussion of media fakery. It's not enough for them to be certain they've figured 9/11 out, they're unwilling to permit any 'unapproved' theory to muddy their waters as the official opposition - or their own 'clarity' of understanding.
When Alex Jones pronounced his anathema against "no planers" who "believed in holograms" and were meant to "discredit the movement", he knew very well what he was doing. He lumped for his followers and listeners all possible lines that lead to fakery making them into one absurd, unpresentable enemy very easy to recognize, and against which they could actively do something about.

He knew that the desire to "do something" and "be active" was in fact continuously frustrated by Alex Jones himself, able to harness these energies to have people buy his products, but never clear as to what was to happen in our lives and how the things could change in our society; there was nothing better than to give the people a scapegoat target to focus their energies on, managing to keep the revelation of media fakery at bay at the same time. This is why, I think, this ban has worked so well and, amazingly, still works today in certain circles where people still censors the topic in good faith, convinced that it is "damaging the movement". :rolleyes:
I know firsthand how effect AJ's gatekeeping is. When the no-plane info first came my way in 2007, I dismissed it without serious consideration, and didn't give it another look until three years later. At the time, I trusted my leaders in the 911 Truth movement. Ironically, it was Alex Jones who taught me about the concept of 'controlled opposition'.

Part of the reason it is such effective gatekeeping to accuse no planes/media fakery theories of "discrediting the movement" is because it is true- these revelations do discredit the phony truth movement.

Changing one's beliefs is especially difficult when we are emotionally invested in the story. The general public's emotional attachment the official story is why the entire psy-op has been so effective. We were traumatized and sucked into the simulation by our tears for fake victims and our anger at the largely mythical 'Al-Qaeda.' When you are emotionally invested, it is harder to see the scam for what it is. Many well-intentioned 'truthers' are likewise emotionally invested in the version of events pushed by Alex Jones, etc, and will try to protect this viewpoint from meddling "fakery" disinfo agents like us. ;)
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by fbenario »

Utah wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:[
When Alex Jones pronounced his anathema against "no planers" who "believed in holograms" and were meant to "discredit the movement", he knew very well what he was doing. He lumped for his followers and listeners all possible lines that lead to fakery making them into one absurd, unpresentable enemy very easy to recognize, and against which they could actively do something about.

He knew that the desire to "do something" and "be active" was in fact continuously frustrated by Alex Jones himself, able to harness these energies to have people buy his products, but never clear as to what was to happen in our lives and how the things could change in our society; there was nothing better than to give the people a scapegoat target to focus their energies on, managing to keep the revelation of media fakery at bay at the same time. This is why, I think, this ban has worked so well and, amazingly, still works today in certain circles where people still censors the topic in good faith, convinced that it is "damaging the movement". :rolleyes:
I know firsthand how effect AJ's gatekeeping is. When the no-plane info first came my way in 2007, I dismissed it without serious consideration, and didn't give it another look until three years later. At the time, I trusted my leaders in the 911 Truth movement. Ironically, it was Alex Jones who taught me about the concept of 'controlled opposition'.

Part of the reason it is such effective gatekeeping to accuse no planes/media fakery theories of "discrediting the movement" is because it is true- these revelations do discredit the phony truth movement.

Changing one's beliefs is especially difficult when we are emotionally invested in the story. The general public's emotional attachment the official story is why the entire psy-op has been so effective. We were traumatized and sucked into the simulation by our tears for fake victims and our anger at the largely mythical 'Al-Qaeda.' When you are emotionally invested, it is harder to see the scam for what it is. Many well-intentioned 'truthers' are likewise emotionally invested in the version of events pushed by Alex Jones, etc, and will try to protect this viewpoint from meddling "fakery" disinfo agents like us. ;)
Excellent, excellent comments by Nonho and Utah!

If we ever do an introductory primer on controlled opposition, this page of the thread would be a great starting point.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by lux »

Utah wrote: When you are emotionally invested, it is harder to see the scam for what it is.
Yes, this is the key. This is what they use over and over in all their scams. An emotional hook. This is what prevents so much of the public from even considering the truth.
kansasinnovember
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:53 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by kansasinnovember »

rasveytravel wrote:Travel the world at a fraction of the price with TravelTipping. You'll find huge discounts on hotels, resorts, tours and cruises.
I know there was some talk recently about how to raise funds to help with the cost of running Cluesforum by Simon & Co,but surely this isn't what i imagined would happen..some guy decides to promote his travel firm with his very first post.
HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by HonestlyNow »

*

For those who are not yet familiar with shill tactics:

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000, 2001
All rights reserved (Edited June 2001)

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases. . . .
figuringitout
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Unread post by figuringitout »

lux wrote:
Utah wrote:
Senior member "don'tdrinkyourmilk" trolls for the official 911 story, like it is his mission in life, effectively polluting the forum with meaningless crap. :puke:

If anyone has time to have a look at what I'm talking about,what do you think? Are these real people, who are just extremely gullible and bored? Are they more likely 'real' shills? Probably doesn't matter, but I'd love to hear other opinions or experiences...
I used to post on DI. My opinion:The DI forum is Shill Central. It is a haven for shills where they are protected and backed up by shill mods.
I suspect as much as well.

David Icke is supposedly a crusader for free speech and is all for 'telling the truth' no matter how bizarre, for as he says, 'the truth is often stranger than fiction'. (paraphrasing)

So how is it then that several threads on Paul McCartney have been locked on the forum to his website? Why does it seem that every time somebody posts about that particular subject the thread is jumped on by 'truthers' with all kinds off abuse shortly before the thread is locked ostensibly because of the 'abuse' the topic generates? (this being on a site where a good deal of threads contain all sorts of abuse, and discussions regarding reptile's and spaceship moons are openly encouraged and contain little to no 'abuse'.)

What's crazier, the world is ruled by reptiles and the moon is their spaceship or a musician was replaced by a plastic surgery altered 'lookalike' who could play/who learnt guitar?

Icke and a lot of the most vocal of his forum users fanatically think the latter it seems.
Post Reply