6 ms·

Directly related to what you are saying, DNC consultants and execs caught on tape explaining how they plant fake Trump supporters at rallies to disrupt them or

Directly related to what you are saying, DNC consultants and execs caught on tape explaining how they plant fake Trump supporters at rallies to disrupt them or get negative media coverage. It is pretty interesting from: 1/ a partisan PoV, 2/ a methodological PoV; you are right there is a war for information that is being waged. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

postcarnival 10y ago
wow this is crazy...
- rtx 10y ago
  Or scary
Pigo 10y ago
There doesn't seem to be enough room in everyone's brain to appreciate a new story in the news every day. I'm amazed at the exposing of the game and how it's played. The proliferation of all this information is making it impossible to hide how the narrative is constructed by government and media. The back-scratching is deafening.
danielnaab 10y ago
The first question to ask with any James O'Keefe video is "where is the raw video." He has a long and sordid history of fabricating these kinds of storylines.
- xname2 10y ago
  Yes. Only the raw video matters. They should publish all the raw video. Otherwise, everything in the video is just fake.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I worked for years as a film professional, including screenwriting and editing. It is very easy to lie with footage. The craft of editing is to make the edits disappear so that changes in camera angles and content appear natural and seamless. We employ misdirection to exploit a phenomenon in the brain known as suture, which creates the illusion of continuity. As a simple example, in a narrative film I'll cut from angle to another when actor A takes a drink from a glass of water. The reason I want to cut is that I have begun to feel bored by shot #1 already for whatever reason - actor A may not be that good looking, or not a great actor, or the scripted dialog may be dull, whatever. It's boring, and that means you the viewer will be bored with it soon too. But I can't just cut away or you'll know what I'm up to. I'll wait until actor A engages in a physical movement and your visual cortex will quietly paper over the transition for me. Hmm, Actor A drank from the glass at different times during different takes, and the action of drinking doesn't line up with the dialog? No problem, I'll just cut briefly to a shot of actor B reacting to actor A (and by exploiting the Kuliekov effect, I can significantly change the meaning of the scene depending on what facial expression I choose to show on actor B) and then I'll cut back to actor A talking again from the new angle. You would be surprised how many movie scenes depicting two people in a room were shot across 2 different days with the actors never actually meeting in person. Likewise you would be astonished at the number of ways the same footage could be combined to tell radically different stories. I have made edits where I have run pieces of footage backwards and not even the director noticed until I pointed it out. Don't think you can't be fooled by even a semi-skillful editor, your brain has been trained in how to watch TV and movies probably from infancy, and while it is not too hard to break free of that training, nor is it hard for others to manipulate your pre-existing mental reflexes.
    - rtx 10y ago
      What's your opininon on the linked video.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - 10y ago
- shireboy 10y ago
  As long as you hold Michael Moore to the same standard.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    > As long as you hold Michael Moore to the same standard. I know you're trying to be dismissive with your glib comment but let me tell you: I do hold him to the same standard and I find him to be a jackass. That doesn't change the fact that James O'Keefe is a convicted criminal (attempted to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu's office). It also doesn't change the fact that he heavily edited the ACORN video to skew the story, nor that they were humoring him and reported his nonsense to the police. Conservatives wanted to believe his lies so they did. O'Keefe has zero credibility.
    - shireboy 10y ago
      Glib maybe, but I'm really glad to hear there are people who are equally discerning of Moore. I know plenty of people who aren't.
  - revscat 10y ago
    Why did the unethical actions of one person validate those of another?
    - shireboy 10y ago
      They didn't.
gnipgnip 10y ago
The past few years have been a re-education for me on Language, Lies, Money, Propaganda and much else. I remain in awe of the state apparatus, and the cynical brilliance required to run it all (assuming there is such a central clique).
- smsm42 10y ago
  I don't see any special brilliance. I see a bunch of people in power running around trying to keep themselves in power, by any means necessary, while screwing up everything around them and then trying to cover it up by telling even more lies. They succeed not because they are so good, but because people let them get away with it, lest the wrong lizard gets in. I mean, how brilliant you have to be to hire a person that would go to reddit to ask about how to cover up your tracks? Or claim you forgot everything about it when asked, including seeing documents that bear your signature? A five year old could do such performance.
  - r_smart 10y ago
    A five year old could at least disarm you with how cute they are.
  - gnipgnip 10y ago
    See, but the politicians didn't create the system; they essentially compete to be the top Vogon. I'd discount some of the paranoia around the FRB, but the modern monetary system appears to be a very very clever way of herding a population; really if you control the banks, you essentially control a population (since loans become the only way to obtain currency). Taxes then for instance would be superfluous were it not necessary to bring a currency into circulation and to avoid inflation (and thus avoid seditious movements). I've been trying to find mathematics that describes the banking system, but it appears there are none (other than such hand-wavy deductions).
sitic 10y ago
Infowars is paying 5k USD for shouting “Bill Clinton is a rapist” on national TV, which has now happed serveral times during Clion campain events. Infowars itself has close ties to the Trump campain, as his surrogate Roger Stone appears often on Alex Jones show. [1] http://www.infowars.com/expose-rapist-bill-clinton-win-5k/ http://www.infowars.com/expose-rapist-bill-clinton-win-5k/
- jazzyk 10y ago
  You are obviously missing the point here: Infowars does not hide it - it is on their website. Clinton campaign's plots/schemes would have remained unknown to the public, if not for Wikileaks.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    This is not to mention that they aren't advocating 'free speech' like Alex Jones(not that I agree with him); they are actively fostering division and inciting violence between American citizens(using the mentally ill as their pawns) to manufacture outrage and promote a narrative. I encourage anyone reading to watch the video, acknowledge it's biased and draw your own conclusions. You can't edit words into someone's mouth.
    - AvenueIngres 10y ago
      > acknowledge it's biased and draw your own conclusions. I think this is the soundest advice here. The formatting of the video makes it obvious that there is a partisan motivation behind this investigation. However, the video also provides a certain amount of raw and non-processed evidence that can be judged on their own merits.
    - shard972 10y ago
      This is the crux of what is going on in politics now. You can't simply trust your instincts when there is so much work going into manipulating those instincts.
- engx 10y ago
gotchange 10y ago
How's this thing incriminating or considered wrongdoing? This is like in football (soccer) where it's against the rules to grab your opponent inside the box when they're taking a free kick on your goal but everyone is doing it anyway, it becomes pointless to complain and moan about it. The same goes for hand-checking in basketball and I'm sure you could find analogies in American football as well.
- AvenueIngres 10y ago
  I do not want to discuss it is ethical or not. I have an opinion on this but that's not the point here. Instead of judging the morality of this smear/psy-op operation, I take a contemplative approach and use this video as evidence that a war for information is being waged. Of course, everyone knows that in a presidential race, things get pretty heated up. However, the violence of the conflict between the two campaigns goes well beyond the violence I anticipated. It seems that everything is now fair game. More importantly, it is clear that there is a huge collusion between the mediatic and political sphere. Again, on a magnitude that goes well beyond what was suspected. Finally, it is quite disturbing - again, from a contemplative PoV - that high-ranking party officials and a candidate themself actually take an active role in this. Before watching this, I would have expected some shady consulting firm running through an ocean of intermediaries and headed by a "special advisor" to some high-ranking DNC official. No, in fact the hierarchy height is much smaller.
takeda 10y ago
They did the same with Bernie supporters. Seems like it works well for them.

postcarnival 10y ago

wow this is crazy...

rtx 10y ago
Or scary

Pigo 10y ago

There doesn't seem to be enough room in everyone's brain to appreciate a new story in the news every day. I'm amazed at the exposing of the game and how it's played. The proliferation of all this information is making it impossible to hide how the narrative is constructed by government and media. The back-scratching is deafening.

danielnaab 10y ago

The first question to ask with any James O'Keefe video is "where is the raw video." He has a long and sordid history of fabricating these kinds of storylines.

xname2 10y ago
Yes. Only the raw video matters. They should publish all the raw video. Otherwise, everything in the video is just fake.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I worked for years as a film professional, including screenwriting and editing. It is very easy to lie with footage. The craft of editing is to make the edits disappear so that changes in camera angles and content appear natural and seamless. We employ misdirection to exploit a phenomenon in the brain known as suture, which creates the illusion of continuity. As a simple example, in a narrative film I'll cut from angle to another when actor A takes a drink from a glass of water. The reason I want to cut is that I have begun to feel bored by shot #1 already for whatever reason - actor A may not be that good looking, or not a great actor, or the scripted dialog may be dull, whatever. It's boring, and that means you the viewer will be bored with it soon too. But I can't just cut away or you'll know what I'm up to. I'll wait until actor A engages in a physical movement and your visual cortex will quietly paper over the transition for me. Hmm, Actor A drank from the glass at different times during different takes, and the action of drinking doesn't line up with the dialog? No problem, I'll just cut briefly to a shot of actor B reacting to actor A (and by exploiting the Kuliekov effect, I can significantly change the meaning of the scene depending on what facial expression I choose to show on actor B) and then I'll cut back to actor A talking again from the new angle. You would be surprised how many movie scenes depicting two people in a room were shot across 2 different days with the actors never actually meeting in person. Likewise you would be astonished at the number of ways the same footage could be combined to tell radically different stories. I have made edits where I have run pieces of footage backwards and not even the director noticed until I pointed it out. Don't think you can't be fooled by even a semi-skillful editor, your brain has been trained in how to watch TV and movies probably from infancy, and while it is not too hard to break free of that training, nor is it hard for others to manipulate your pre-existing mental reflexes.
  - rtx 10y ago
    What's your opininon on the linked video.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - 10y ago
shireboy 10y ago
As long as you hold Michael Moore to the same standard.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  > As long as you hold Michael Moore to the same standard. I know you're trying to be dismissive with your glib comment but let me tell you: I do hold him to the same standard and I find him to be a jackass. That doesn't change the fact that James O'Keefe is a convicted criminal (attempted to wiretap Sen. Mary Landrieu's office). It also doesn't change the fact that he heavily edited the ACORN video to skew the story, nor that they were humoring him and reported his nonsense to the police. Conservatives wanted to believe his lies so they did. O'Keefe has zero credibility.
  - shireboy 10y ago
    Glib maybe, but I'm really glad to hear there are people who are equally discerning of Moore. I know plenty of people who aren't.
- revscat 10y ago
  Why did the unethical actions of one person validate those of another?
  - shireboy 10y ago
    They didn't.

gnipgnip 10y ago

The past few years have been a re-education for me on Language, Lies, Money, Propaganda and much else. I remain in awe of the state apparatus, and the cynical brilliance required to run it all (assuming there is such a central clique).

smsm42 10y ago
I don't see any special brilliance. I see a bunch of people in power running around trying to keep themselves in power, by any means necessary, while screwing up everything around them and then trying to cover it up by telling even more lies. They succeed not because they are so good, but because people let them get away with it, lest the wrong lizard gets in. I mean, how brilliant you have to be to hire a person that would go to reddit to ask about how to cover up your tracks? Or claim you forgot everything about it when asked, including seeing documents that bear your signature? A five year old could do such performance.
- r_smart 10y ago
  A five year old could at least disarm you with how cute they are.
- gnipgnip 10y ago
  See, but the politicians didn't create the system; they essentially compete to be the top Vogon. I'd discount some of the paranoia around the FRB, but the modern monetary system appears to be a very very clever way of herding a population; really if you control the banks, you essentially control a population (since loans become the only way to obtain currency). Taxes then for instance would be superfluous were it not necessary to bring a currency into circulation and to avoid inflation (and thus avoid seditious movements). I've been trying to find mathematics that describes the banking system, but it appears there are none (other than such hand-wavy deductions).

sitic 10y ago

Infowars is paying 5k USD for shouting “Bill Clinton is a rapist” on national TV, which has now happed serveral times during Clion campain events. Infowars itself has close ties to the Trump campain, as his surrogate Roger Stone appears often on Alex Jones show. [1] http://www.infowars.com/expose-rapist-bill-clinton-win-5k/ http://www.infowars.com/expose-rapist-bill-clinton-win-5k/

jazzyk 10y ago
You are obviously missing the point here: Infowars does not hide it - it is on their website. Clinton campaign's plots/schemes would have remained unknown to the public, if not for Wikileaks.
- ZoF 10y ago
  This is not to mention that they aren't advocating 'free speech' like Alex Jones(not that I agree with him); they are actively fostering division and inciting violence between American citizens(using the mentally ill as their pawns) to manufacture outrage and promote a narrative. I encourage anyone reading to watch the video, acknowledge it's biased and draw your own conclusions. You can't edit words into someone's mouth.
  - AvenueIngres 10y ago
    > acknowledge it's biased and draw your own conclusions. I think this is the soundest advice here. The formatting of the video makes it obvious that there is a partisan motivation behind this investigation. However, the video also provides a certain amount of raw and non-processed evidence that can be judged on their own merits.
  - shard972 10y ago
    This is the crux of what is going on in politics now. You can't simply trust your instincts when there is so much work going into manipulating those instincts.
engx 10y ago

gotchange 10y ago

How's this thing incriminating or considered wrongdoing? This is like in football (soccer) where it's against the rules to grab your opponent inside the box when they're taking a free kick on your goal but everyone is doing it anyway, it becomes pointless to complain and moan about it. The same goes for hand-checking in basketball and I'm sure you could find analogies in American football as well.

AvenueIngres 10y ago
I do not want to discuss it is ethical or not. I have an opinion on this but that's not the point here. Instead of judging the morality of this smear/psy-op operation, I take a contemplative approach and use this video as evidence that a war for information is being waged. Of course, everyone knows that in a presidential race, things get pretty heated up. However, the violence of the conflict between the two campaigns goes well beyond the violence I anticipated. It seems that everything is now fair game. More importantly, it is clear that there is a huge collusion between the mediatic and political sphere. Again, on a magnitude that goes well beyond what was suspected. Finally, it is quite disturbing - again, from a contemplative PoV - that high-ranking party officials and a candidate themself actually take an active role in this. Before watching this, I would have expected some shady consulting firm running through an ocean of intermediaries and headed by a "special advisor" to some high-ranking DNC official. No, in fact the hierarchy height is much smaller.

takeda 10y ago

They did the same with Bernie supporters. Seems like it works well for them.