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

[Joe Hillshoist]

I'm not so sure. Brock, Podesta, and the Clintons are the same ruling class to me.

I think it's because we were always supposed to listen to the children, but now we're supposed to listen to the self-perceived aggrieved who are johnny-come-latelys to this practice and come from the same community where I was trying to beat up on white supremacists all summer.

[American Dream]

It is mind boggling to me the lengths that the true believer types will go to in order to cling to the Pizzagate meme. This reflects very poorly on the movement we are in effect representing to the public at large.

[Wombaticus Rex]

It is mind boggling to me the lengths that the true believer types will go to in order to cling to the Pizzagate meme. This reflects very poorly on the movement we are in effect representing to the public at large.

Just curious: what movement do you feel you're representing to the public at large? I'm with you on "pizzagate" as mostly questionable ingredients, but couldn't parse the second half there.

[OP ED]

I don't represent any movement. I represent stillness.

[American Dream]

Those of us who claim that conspiracies are an important part of how the world is operating are part of a larger ecology- and will be portrayed as such in the most unflattering terms- as the mass media makes clear.

There was a sense of power and importance to the collective endeavor towards revealing hidden truths in the time immediately after 9/11 and in the early stages of the "Global War on Terror". Before that, Iran Contra time brought the possibility of exposure to international drug trafficking, torture. state terror, secret wars, etc. Exposing secret information really can have the potential to change things on a very deep level.

The shit happening now is just an embarrassment to us all. The extremely misguided help make us all look bad, and that's really a shame.

[guruilla]

I'm with you on "pizzagate" as mostly questionable ingredients, but couldn't parse the second half there.

Explain?

[guruilla]

Here's a thing: I've been reading about & discussing Pizzagate at various different forums, here, my blog, Facebook, Voat, independent blogs & MSM, and the only places where I have encountered a pretty consistent stream of bullshit, ignorance, and denial is MSM, and here, at RI. Not meaning this as a criticism, just a point of comparison. Maybe it's because this space allows for a wide spectrum of perspectives and this is good (I am still posting here); but the point remains, those who take Pizzagate seriously seem to me to be, overall, more sincere and serious people, and less ideologically entrenched, than those who do not.

I am sure I'd feel differently if I hung out at r/The_Donald, but I don't, because I don't need to. My point is, I have seen loads of evidence that people dismissing Pizzagate have an ideological stake in doing so; I haven't seen much evidence of the opposite, even though that's the primary charge of the Pizzagate-debunkers, that it is an ideologically fueled memeplex.

It may well be (that doesn't mean the ingredients are fake); but the attempt to debunk & discredit most definitely IS.

[barracuda]

my blog, Facebook, Voat...

You're seeing approving comments on your Facebook feed? Well, that settles it. Can't get much more definitive than that. Checkmate.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I'm with you on "pizzagate" as mostly questionable ingredients, but couldn't parse the second half there.

Explain?

There are some really dumb motherfuckers making really dumb conclusions in the #Pizzagate ecosystem. Like, lots of them. Most of them.

I realize it chafes you when people say that because you feel it's an insult aimed at you.

But we can't pretend this isn't a horseshit parade when we've got the spectacle of Alex Jones saying "when I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her." That's part of the Pizzagate phenomenon, too, and a major hub, at that. You can't No True Scotsman that one away into a David Brock frame-up. There really are tons of bad actors muddying the water, and tons of amateur researchers with no critical thinking skills.

[guruilla]

my blog, Facebook, Voat...

You're seeing approving comments on your Facebook feed? Well, that settles it. Can't get much more definitive than that. Checkmate.

No, snarkster, I am listening in on discussions, and one primary way I gauge how grounded or sane a person is is by their methods of communication. (See WR's last point about well-poisoners)

Check, mate?

[guruilla]

I'm with you on "pizzagate" as mostly questionable ingredients, but couldn't parse the second half there.

Explain?

There are some really dumb motherfuckers making really dumb conclusions in the #Pizzagate ecosystem. Like, lots of them. Most of them.

I realize it chafes you when people say that because you feel it's an insult aimed at you.

But we can't pretend this isn't a horseshit parade when we've got the spectacle of Alex Jones saying "when I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her." That's part of the Pizzagate phenomenon, too, and a major hub, at that. You can't No True Scotsman that one away into a David Brock frame-up. There really are tons of bad actors muddying the water, and tons of amateur researchers with no critical thinking skills.

Sure, but isn't that always the case when it comes to highly emotionally charged data, especially when relating to the secret machinations of the elite? How much was this also true of 9/11? UFO research? MKULTRA? You singled out Pizzagate as if it were especially so, mostly BS, & as if to suggest that the evidence itself is mostly crap. That is very different from saying that the people presenting it are, some of the time, a bit loony, or that there is, as always & maybe even more than usual, a large percentage of shills muddying the waters.

[PufPuf93]

What I see as interesting is that the MSM and internet were awash with WikiLeaks/Podesta then like a switch the tenor turned to "false news", Russian hacking, and PizzaGate.

The presented narratives of Russian hacking and PizzaGate if anything weaken and make questionable and misdirect any substance that may well exist in Russian manipulation and elite child abuse just not in the ridiculous form so many are so willing to accept.

[slomo]

I'm with you on "pizzagate" as mostly questionable ingredients, but couldn't parse the second half there.

Explain?

There are some really dumb motherfuckers making really dumb conclusions in the #Pizzagate ecosystem. Like, lots of them. Most of them.

I realize it chafes you when people say that because you feel it's an insult aimed at you.

But we can't pretend this isn't a horseshit parade when we've got the spectacle of Alex Jones saying "when I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her." That's part of the Pizzagate phenomenon, too, and a major hub, at that. You can't No True Scotsman that one away into a David Brock frame-up. There really are tons of bad actors muddying the water, and tons of amateur researchers with no critical thinking skills.

Sure, but isn't that always the case when it comes to highly emotionally charged data, especially when relating to the secret machinations of the elite? How much was this also true of 9/11? UFO research? MKULTRA? You singled out Pizzagate as if it were especially so, mostly BS, & as if to suggest that the evidence itself is mostly crap. That is very different from saying that the people presenting it are, some of the time, a bit loony, or that there is, as always & maybe even more than usual, a large percentage of shills muddying the waters.

See my post on the other thread. The actual practice of "rationality" is messy. It's just that in Science, the messy conversations are hidden from public view. That is impossible on the internet.

This much is true: "There really are tons of bad actors muddying the water, and tons of amateur researchers with no critical thinking skills." Does that mean that we should therefore just avoid the conversation altogether, rather than trying to separate the wheat from chaff?

I've changed my views on PG several times. I go back and forth. My current belief is that it is a psy-op built upon real events, although those events may have very little to do with Comet or Alefantis, other than by way of associations that are fairly typical of DC.

[Burnt Hill]

I'm with you on "pizzagate" as mostly questionable ingredients, but couldn't parse the second half there.

Explain?

There are some really dumb motherfuckers making really dumb conclusions in the #Pizzagate ecosystem. Like, lots of them. Most of them.

I realize it chafes you when people say that because you feel it's an insult aimed at you.

But we can't pretend this isn't a horseshit parade when we've got the spectacle of Alex Jones saying "when I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her." That's part of the Pizzagate phenomenon, too, and a major hub, at that. You can't No True Scotsman that one away into a David Brock frame-up. There really are tons of bad actors muddying the water, and tons of amateur researchers with no critical thinking skills.

Sure, but isn't that always the case when it comes to highly emotionally charged data, especially when relating to the secret machinations of the elite? How much was this also true of 9/11? UFO research? MKULTRA? You singled out Pizzagate as if it were especially so, mostly BS, & as if to suggest that the evidence itself is mostly crap. That is very different from saying that the people presenting it are, some of the time, a bit loony, or that there is, as always & maybe even more than usual, a large percentage of shills muddying the waters.

See my post on the other thread. The actual practice of "rationality" is messy. It's just that in Science, the messy conversations are hidden from public view. That is impossible on the internet.

This much is true: "There really are tons of bad actors muddying the water, and tons of amateur researchers with no critical thinking skills." Does that mean that we should therefore just avoid the conversation altogether, rather than trying to separate the wheat from chaff?

I've changed my views on PG several times. I go back and forth. My current belief is that it is a psy-op built upon real events, although those events may have very little to do with Comet or Alefantis, other than by way of associations that are fairly typical of DC.

It just means that we don't have to be part of the ignorant mob mentality here.
Ideas are fine, but check your sources - literally and figuratively.
No one wants to shut down conversation.

"All of these challenges of course made the paper better."

[guruilla]

I've changed my views on PG several times. I go back and forth. My current belief is that it is a psy-op built upon real events, although those events may have very little to do with Comet or Alefantis, other than by way of associations that are fairly typical of DC.

I highly doubt that myself, because this kind of sexual crime is in the culture and CPP openly celebrated that culture of borderline criminal sexuality. Meanwhile, Alefantis is linked closely to people we can be pretty sure are perpetrating actual sexual crimes, or complicit with them. The chances of his not knowing about this & just getting carried away by his cheeky, "Pan"-like sexual humor seem negligible, at best.

I kind of wish you didn't have to keep calling it a psy-op too. Is it a way to cover yourself from getting called gullible by the snark squad? I mean, in the context of the OP here, and what we know about MSM and alternate media and everything else, what isn't a psy-op?

There's a difference between information that is essentially fictional, fabricated, and disseminated in order to perform a psychological operation on the collective, and information that is leaked, or maybe even comes out unexpectedly, which is re-distributed after being cut with more toxic or spurious elements, and or re-contextualized by giving it to dodgy spokespeople known for their hyperbole or dubious ideological leanings... The primary sources of evidence for "Pizzagate," I would say, are clearly in the second class (i.e, not fabricated, but diluted), though the question as to whether the information was deliberately leaked to then be "cut", or whether it came out unexpectedly is probably unknowable.

It's clearly been effective, since people can just casually call it "ridiculous" without even feeling any need to specify what they find ridiculous, and why? The only part I find ridiculous is these people who think they are too-cool-for-school but smart-enough-for art, dismissing the evidence without ever really presenting much by way of a solid rationale for doing so. Though I suppose that's less ridiculous than arrogant & condescending, so endemic to the culture of abuse that often people don't even know when they are doing it (I am sure I do it too).