10 ms·

As far as I can tell -- there's some evidence of false flag operations regarding the "stand down and go home" resolution. There seems to be plenty of voices fr

As far as I can tell -- there's some evidence of false flag operations regarding the "stand down and go home" resolution. There seems to be plenty of voices from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe leadership calling for continued peaceful protest.

protomyth 10y ago
"unanimously passed" - the only false flag is the outside pundits and paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes. The state is rather unhappy, particularly given who the likely donors are and this is causing a budget problem for the state.
- breatheoften 10y ago
  I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours. For the sake of clarity -- who are the outside donors that are funding the protest and bringing the state government to its knees?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I know people on both sides. I have relatives on both sides. I was pretty neutral until the latest round of reporting and looking at what's going to happen this spring with the flooding. The long term business impact on all reservations is problematic. Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours. Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.
    - geofft 10y ago
      Are you saying you have friends and relatives being paid by Soros?
    - untog 10y ago
      To be clear: do you have evidence that George Soros is funding protests? If you do, you should tell someone in the media about it, as it would be a huge story.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        What huge story? KFYR has had it on daily for months. Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them. I don't get why you think this would be huge?
        untog 10y ago
        > Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing. The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy. To date, I have not seen any evidence backing up those assertions. It is entirely possible I have missed it, though, so I'd like to be filled in.
        protomyth 10y ago
        http://kfyr.iheart.com http://kfyr.iheart.com is the radio - they don't have transcripts as far as I can see - I will look when I have time and after I decide if I really want to spend more time on it. At this point we have a flood coming, and the likelihood that no one will want to do business on any of the reservations. Frankly, when you know people and have relatives on both sides and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar really doesn't make me want to bother anymore. People forget the problems we are having with rail transport and one of the other tribes being dragged out of poverty because of the oil. I still love my relatives doing the protesting, but they would have been better served if the tribe had bother to do its paperwork years ago. I don't know about those other things.
        untog 10y ago
    - tallanvor 10y ago
      Can you point to any legitimate source that says George Soros is funding the protests? Or are you suggesting real news outlets are purposefully not reporting this?
    - kristopolous 10y ago
      That's a sham to discredit legitimate dissent. People are doing immense and terrible sacrifices. The constant propaganda technique is to trivialize the nobility of the actors as if they're paid shills. No evidence needed - just a slander and move on. Such PR hoodwink tactics by big energy are disgraceful. Stop falling for it.
    - mindslight 10y ago
      I know you're getting downvoted to #FFF, but you would you mind expanding on the purported business motives behind this? I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that advocacy campaigns are useful idiots being steered by business interests (and that if you don't see who's doing the steering, then you're likely being steered). But I am also sympathetic to the neoliberal idea that financial alchemists can be on the side of good, profiting from pushing then riding the market into a better local optimum. And so tossing out "Soros" just triggers my redgroupthink detector - his funding itself wouldn't invalidate the protest (if this were the case, then neither side has any moral authority), but the actual cui bono could.
      - MK999 10y ago
        If oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        If the pipeline makes the end-to-end cost more effective (which is the only reason pipelines get built; they aren't gratuitous or altruistic ventures by the forms building them), it decreases the minimum market price at which oil will even be extracted from the field it serves. So it is absolutely not the case, that "if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail", since, depending on market conditions, if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will sit in the ground.
        mindslight 10y ago
        Giving GP the benefit of the doubt means interpreting the comment as "Much oil that currently moves by rail will move by the pipeline", which is valid. Still that seems like a relatively small business interest, relative to the overwhelming behemoth implied by "astroturfing". The presence of some amount of self-interested business funding cannot invalidate the legitimacy of a point of view, or there would be no such thing as a legitimate point of view. So what I look for is a severe power disparity between the two sides which would swamp the smaller side's point of view. In this situation, that seems like the oil companies and the legible-business-interest preference of state and federal governments. Railroads being on the opposing side doesn't really alter my appraisal of that balance. But I'd be interested in hearing the involvement of a larger entity that I've missed.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    >I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. I didn't see OP claim that there weren't "real" protesters, only that some were paid.
    - breatheoften 10y ago
      Given that (paid) journalists covering the event have been charged as protesters, implying that at least law enforcement lumps the journalists in with the protesters -- there is no doubt a way to support the claim that "at least one 'protester' is paid". The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.
      - jessaustin 10y ago
        Sure, but don't we hear the same "propaganda" every time any group gathers anywhere? If it's not Soros, it's the Kochs; if it's not unions, it's the Russians: whatever boogieman gets you going. In future, can't we just take it as read that some percentage of any group is paid to be there and some higher percentage is accused by someone else of being paid to be there? Is it something we have to worry about?
        breatheoften 10y ago
        Unfortunately yes we do have to worry about propaganda. An example: In Colorado where I live a large number of people contacted their republican senator Cory Gardner to express their disapproval of Betsy Davos for Secretary of Education. Gardner publicly ignored these voices with the claim that they were "paid protesters". Widespread claims that protesters can be ignored because of a claimed "paid protester" taint should be challenged when false because these claims spread and make it easier to normalize this kind of democracy eroding response from representatives. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58937d6ee4b07595d05a5087 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58937d6ee4b07595d05a5087
        10y ago
- geofft 10y ago
  An easy way to demonstrate the truth of the "paid protesters" claim is to show any way one can sign up to be a paid protestor. I have been doing some unpaid protesting and wouldn't mind a check, to be honest. Until then: FAKE NEWS!
  - jonknee 10y ago
    You're 100% correct, but even if there are "paid protestors" I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Everyone working for the pipeline is getting paid!
    - zo1 10y ago
      Would you say the same if said "paid" action was driving/directing public policy? There is a reason there are strict laws regulating money in regulations and public service. This is of course not quite the same but it essentially boils down to "money buys votes". The assumption being that who sends more money wins. That is why I would argue it bothers people. Edit: grammar.
      - jonknee 10y ago
        Paid action drives public policy every day, it's the normal way things work. Do you think the people who are fighting for the pipeline are doing it for fun? Like these guys: https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ Business interests have a huge leg up here because there is money to be made, anti-business interests like not building a pipeline are the ones that have to rely on volunteers. I sure hope there are some paid organizers helping out because they're up against a machine.
    - geofft 10y ago
      It discredits the protests: it implies that opposition isn't coming from a large number of intrinsically motivated people, but from a small number of people with money. It's the same philosophy behind paid votes being a bad thing. Even in our capitalist society, we believe that one-person-one-vote leads to a better society than one-dollar-one-vote. You can imagine systems that aren't one-person-one-vote (and they exist; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... in which one real estate chairperson has equivalent voting power to fifteen thousand private citizens), but for whatever reason, America's ideal is one-person-one-vote. In particular, when the opposition holds adherence to one-person-one-political-voice as one of its own principles, the opposition can't say "So what" without appearing hypocritical. They have to actually address that criticism directly.
- beat 10y ago
  Friends of mine have been up there on their own, or donating money and goods. Blaming "paid protesters" is self-deception. What does it benefit you to believe that people aren't doing this because they believe in it?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Oh, I believe some of them believe in it, as I said I have relatives there. On the other hand, there are paid organizers from various groups here. One doesn't change the other. Plus, I'm just sick of articles like this that just lie and don't check facts. I expect better of the BBC.
    - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
      I've heard a lot of rumblings from the right about Soros etc being behind any real protest activity on the left. In particular with the DAPL, I'm left wondering what he would have to gain from supporting said protest at all, let alone the suggestion that the protest is entirely manufactured to begin with to further his interests.
    - adamsea 10y ago
      The rightness of the cause can be discussed independently of the funding behind those taking action. Plus, "paid organizers from various groups" sounds weird, you mean, like, maybe the Sierra Club sent someone there to help the protests because the Sierra Club cares about the environment? Or do you mean, like, the evil George Soros sent his UN minions there to help advance the New World Order?
      - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
        I'd love to hear more from this person, but it appears upon receiving any real skepticism of their claims they've gone silent.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      "Paid organizers from various groups" sounds to me like "people that work full time for NGOs that protect the environment". Which is very different from "people who don't care about the issue at all, and wouldn't be protesting there if not for the paycheck".
- WillyOnWheels 10y ago
  I have never heard of people being paid to protest at Standing Rock under the table. "paid protestors at Standing Rock not filing their taxes" is a theme I have not heard of before. Congratulations. From the Standing Rock protestors that I am personally acquainted with, the Indian tribes in the area recognize that the only reason the world cares about their problems is because a thousand white people showed up. I am being flippant of course and I realize that it's just not white people.
- rgbrgb 10y ago
  Do you have any independent evidence suggesting that protesters were paid? Citing the North Dakota government page is kind of like citing Sean Spicer on inauguration crowd sizes.

protomyth 10y ago

"unanimously passed" - the only false flag is the outside pundits and paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes. The state is rather unhappy, particularly given who the likely donors are and this is causing a budget problem for the state.

breatheoften 10y ago
I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. Interestingly enough, I trust their words more than yours. For the sake of clarity -- who are the outside donors that are funding the protest and bringing the state government to its knees?
- protomyth 10y ago
  I know people on both sides. I have relatives on both sides. I was pretty neutral until the latest round of reporting and looking at what's going to happen this spring with the flooding. The long term business impact on all reservations is problematic. Interestingly enough, I trust my relatives and friends words more than yours. Soros is the biggest, and yes, the money spent here is a major drag on the state.
  - geofft 10y ago
    Are you saying you have friends and relatives being paid by Soros?
  - untog 10y ago
    To be clear: do you have evidence that George Soros is funding protests? If you do, you should tell someone in the media about it, as it would be a huge story.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      What huge story? KFYR has had it on daily for months. Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them. I don't get why you think this would be huge?
      - untog 10y ago
        > Just look at the organizers here and what groups pay them That is the information I am asking for. A Google search for "soros site:www.kfyrtv.com" returns nothing. The reason I ask is that "George Soros is funding protests" has become something of a meme in right-wing circles to dismiss anything from the Women's March, the airport protests to Standing Rock as being little more than some kind of left-wing conspiracy. To date, I have not seen any evidence backing up those assertions. It is entirely possible I have missed it, though, so I'd like to be filled in.
        protomyth 10y ago
        http://kfyr.iheart.com http://kfyr.iheart.com is the radio - they don't have transcripts as far as I can see - I will look when I have time and after I decide if I really want to spend more time on it. At this point we have a flood coming, and the likelihood that no one will want to do business on any of the reservations. Frankly, when you know people and have relatives on both sides and get told a lot but keep getting called and voted as a liar really doesn't make me want to bother anymore. People forget the problems we are having with rail transport and one of the other tribes being dragged out of poverty because of the oil. I still love my relatives doing the protesting, but they would have been better served if the tribe had bother to do its paperwork years ago. I don't know about those other things.
        untog 10y ago
  - tallanvor 10y ago
    Can you point to any legitimate source that says George Soros is funding the protests? Or are you suggesting real news outlets are purposefully not reporting this?
  - kristopolous 10y ago
    That's a sham to discredit legitimate dissent. People are doing immense and terrible sacrifices. The constant propaganda technique is to trivialize the nobility of the actors as if they're paid shills. No evidence needed - just a slander and move on. Such PR hoodwink tactics by big energy are disgraceful. Stop falling for it.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    I know you're getting downvoted to #FFF, but you would you mind expanding on the purported business motives behind this? I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that advocacy campaigns are useful idiots being steered by business interests (and that if you don't see who's doing the steering, then you're likely being steered). But I am also sympathetic to the neoliberal idea that financial alchemists can be on the side of good, profiting from pushing then riding the market into a better local optimum. And so tossing out "Soros" just triggers my redgroupthink detector - his funding itself wouldn't invalidate the protest (if this were the case, then neither side has any moral authority), but the actual cui bono could.
    - MK999 10y ago
      If oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        If the pipeline makes the end-to-end cost more effective (which is the only reason pipelines get built; they aren't gratuitous or altruistic ventures by the forms building them), it decreases the minimum market price at which oil will even be extracted from the field it serves. So it is absolutely not the case, that "if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will move by rail", since, depending on market conditions, if oil doesn't move by pipeline it will sit in the ground.
        mindslight 10y ago
        Giving GP the benefit of the doubt means interpreting the comment as "Much oil that currently moves by rail will move by the pipeline", which is valid. Still that seems like a relatively small business interest, relative to the overwhelming behemoth implied by "astroturfing". The presence of some amount of self-interested business funding cannot invalidate the legitimacy of a point of view, or there would be no such thing as a legitimate point of view. So what I look for is a severe power disparity between the two sides which would swamp the smaller side's point of view. In this situation, that seems like the oil companies and the legible-business-interest preference of state and federal governments. Railroads being on the opposing side doesn't really alter my appraisal of that balance. But I'd be interested in hearing the involvement of a larger entity that I've missed.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >I personally know people who went to the Standing Rock camp that were not paid protesters. I didn't see OP claim that there weren't "real" protesters, only that some were paid.
  - breatheoften 10y ago
    Given that (paid) journalists covering the event have been charged as protesters, implying that at least law enforcement lumps the journalists in with the protesters -- there is no doubt a way to support the claim that "at least one 'protester' is paid". The suggestion that a significant number of the 10s of thousands are being paid is just propaganda though and deserves to be challenged.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
      Sure, but don't we hear the same "propaganda" every time any group gathers anywhere? If it's not Soros, it's the Kochs; if it's not unions, it's the Russians: whatever boogieman gets you going. In future, can't we just take it as read that some percentage of any group is paid to be there and some higher percentage is accused by someone else of being paid to be there? Is it something we have to worry about?
      - breatheoften 10y ago
        Unfortunately yes we do have to worry about propaganda. An example: In Colorado where I live a large number of people contacted their republican senator Cory Gardner to express their disapproval of Betsy Davos for Secretary of Education. Gardner publicly ignored these voices with the claim that they were "paid protesters". Widespread claims that protesters can be ignored because of a claimed "paid protester" taint should be challenged when false because these claims spread and make it easier to normalize this kind of democracy eroding response from representatives. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58937d6ee4b07595d05a5087 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58937d6ee4b07595d05a5087
        10y ago
geofft 10y ago
An easy way to demonstrate the truth of the "paid protesters" claim is to show any way one can sign up to be a paid protestor. I have been doing some unpaid protesting and wouldn't mind a check, to be honest. Until then: FAKE NEWS!
- jonknee 10y ago
  You're 100% correct, but even if there are "paid protestors" I really don't get why that's a bad thing. Everyone working for the pipeline is getting paid!
  - zo1 10y ago
    Would you say the same if said "paid" action was driving/directing public policy? There is a reason there are strict laws regulating money in regulations and public service. This is of course not quite the same but it essentially boils down to "money buys votes". The assumption being that who sends more money wins. That is why I would argue it bothers people. Edit: grammar.
    - jonknee 10y ago
      Paid action drives public policy every day, it's the normal way things work. Do you think the people who are fighting for the pipeline are doing it for fun? Like these guys: https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ https://daplpipelinefacts.com/ Business interests have a huge leg up here because there is money to be made, anti-business interests like not building a pipeline are the ones that have to rely on volunteers. I sure hope there are some paid organizers helping out because they're up against a machine.
  - geofft 10y ago
    It discredits the protests: it implies that opposition isn't coming from a large number of intrinsically motivated people, but from a small number of people with money. It's the same philosophy behind paid votes being a bad thing. Even in our capitalist society, we believe that one-person-one-vote leads to a better society than one-dollar-one-vote. You can imagine systems that aren't one-person-one-vote (and they exist; see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_Kong) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_constituency_(Hong_... in which one real estate chairperson has equivalent voting power to fifteen thousand private citizens), but for whatever reason, America's ideal is one-person-one-vote. In particular, when the opposition holds adherence to one-person-one-political-voice as one of its own principles, the opposition can't say "So what" without appearing hypocritical. They have to actually address that criticism directly.
beat 10y ago
Friends of mine have been up there on their own, or donating money and goods. Blaming "paid protesters" is self-deception. What does it benefit you to believe that people aren't doing this because they believe in it?
- protomyth 10y ago
  Oh, I believe some of them believe in it, as I said I have relatives there. On the other hand, there are paid organizers from various groups here. One doesn't change the other. Plus, I'm just sick of articles like this that just lie and don't check facts. I expect better of the BBC.
  - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
    I've heard a lot of rumblings from the right about Soros etc being behind any real protest activity on the left. In particular with the DAPL, I'm left wondering what he would have to gain from supporting said protest at all, let alone the suggestion that the protest is entirely manufactured to begin with to further his interests.
  - adamsea 10y ago
    The rightness of the cause can be discussed independently of the funding behind those taking action. Plus, "paid organizers from various groups" sounds weird, you mean, like, maybe the Sierra Club sent someone there to help the protests because the Sierra Club cares about the environment? Or do you mean, like, the evil George Soros sent his UN minions there to help advance the New World Order?
    - knowaveragejoe 10y ago
      I'd love to hear more from this person, but it appears upon receiving any real skepticism of their claims they've gone silent.
  - euyyn 10y ago
    "Paid organizers from various groups" sounds to me like "people that work full time for NGOs that protect the environment". Which is very different from "people who don't care about the issue at all, and wouldn't be protesting there if not for the paycheck".
WillyOnWheels 10y ago
I have never heard of people being paid to protest at Standing Rock under the table. "paid protestors at Standing Rock not filing their taxes" is a theme I have not heard of before. Congratulations. From the Standing Rock protestors that I am personally acquainted with, the Indian tribes in the area recognize that the only reason the world cares about their problems is because a thousand white people showed up. I am being flippant of course and I realize that it's just not white people.
rgbrgb 10y ago
Do you have any independent evidence suggesting that protesters were paid? Citing the North Dakota government page is kind of like citing Sean Spicer on inauguration crowd sizes.