State Sponsored Propaganda And Disinformation In Full Swing

In the last 200 years or so, since general communication has become more efficient and fast paced in society along with the growing information outlets, the focus and information centralization has narrowed people's attention to more specific sources. Today there are about half a dozen major companies that own all the major information outlets on television and print.

The irony in the matter is that these major media outlets are becoming what MySpace became to the social internet users which is a money-focused, ad congested arena where it sort of lost the cool effect which is evident in the declining viewer base and the seemingly desperate ad placement attempts. I wouldn't go as far as calling the management of these media sources as incompetent by any measure because it's quite evident that they understand basic human psychology just as well as anyone which is demonstrated in every television show's structure, set colors, the host's vocal tones and cadence, etc. and I mention these because they are all extremely important factors when it comes to serving information you would want your viewers to believe.

But this isn't about servile FOX and CNN viewers, this is about the use of these outlets and the internet to push disinformation with evidence of state and even corporate sponsorship or maybe even both in direct involvement in order to purposely mislead groups of people into believing information without a factual base.

On the political end, there is no short of bureaucrats campaigning to "control" the internet as an information source where they've proposed many tactical oversights of information on the web that would rival Chinese or Iranian style censorship. Representatives like Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Jay Rockefeller have become the poster children of ending free speech on the internet where they've supported bold legislation like SOPA and the Protect IP Act which are blatant attempts to stifle everyday internet users as the legislation proposes criminalizing people for even linking to copyrighted material such as linking to a Youtube video as I do on this blog regularly.

The darkest side of this story comes from direct state and corporate involvement in spreading disinformation on the web by way of posing as anonymous users on message boards, trolling for websites and blogs that serve apposing purposes, creating videos as false supporters of certain political candidates in attempt to hype some false flag event and slandering in general. This sort of activity is even proposed as official policy by President Obama's regulatory czar Cass Sunstein as he argues that that the government should "ban conspiracy theorizing" which is an extension of many proposed government "information oversight" groups to control information on the internet.

“We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”

Sunstein is definitely not alone when it comes to high powered officials proposing similar action -- former President Bill Clinton proposes a "government internet agency" who would be tasked with "identifying relevant factual errors" claiming it would be "a worthy expenditure of tax payers money."

I enjoy a chuckle when they use the terms "extremists" or "conspiracy theorists" regularly to describe just about anyone who independently investigates Big Government factions and corporate involvement and the irony in the matter while just about every mainline "conspiracy theory" about the government in recent history has been proven factual. Some of the popular ones being MK Ultra, Iran-Cantra, the Iraq war in general, CIA involvement in drug dealing, CIA's Operation Mockingbird, Operation Ajax, all of which have proven to be factual. Would it have been possible to expose these conspiracies for what they are without so-called "theorizing" and dissent?

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future. Oh yes, irony indeed.

Our American tax payer funded government in Isreal uses state sponsored propaganda teams regularly and very openly in order to stifle opposition, one example of which I had laid out in a previous article which somewhat goes along in this article: "Twitterers paid to spread Isreali propaganda Internet warfare team unveiled."

It's become quite clear that the establishment is willing to label regular Big Government opposition as extremists or conspiracy theorists in order to paint a picture of what they claim to be some sort of unlawful dissent. An amplified example of this can be found in the infamous MIAC Homeland Security Report that plainly points fingers at regular Americans such as gun owners, paramilitary trainees, watchers of movies like Zeitgeist, even Ron Paul supporters claiming these are all signs of "domestic terrorism." Another example is shown in a pamphlet handed out to police officers in Arizona from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force labeled If you encounter which, in similar fashion to the MIAC Report, depicts potential domestic terrorists as "defenders of the US Constitution" and people who "request authority for stops" by law officers.

The internet has become the new stomping grounds for this sort of labeling and general disinformation in a desperate attempt to squash the possibility of Americans waking up to the establishment's game of control. On every major message board, forum, and social media outlet lately, there has been an all out information battle due to a sudden surge in apparent disinformation especially in regards to Presidential Candidate Ron Paul. You can fairly easily identify the anti-Ron Paul trolling by the nonsense sort of name calling where they try to make it seem like Ron Paul is losing support and throw out some overly baseless view point of the candidate without ever going into detailed facts in order to stir frustration.

There is no doubt in my mind that this level of attack is clearly sponsored but it's had little effect as typical Ron Paul supporters readily identify the trolling up front. A newer problem stems from the more real public activity attempts to paint pictures of Paul supporters as "crazy" as exampled in a recent attempt by some individuals to plan on dressing up as KKK members and pose as Ron Paul supporters to make his supporters seems antisemitic.

What the anti-Ron Paul bots seem to not realize is that this support structure isn't just there due to Ron Paul as he is just a current focal point in a larger goal that obviously Ron Paul couldn't accomplish alone. Supporters feel they've won even if he doesn't get the Republican nomination as the entire year in the campaign will be injected with real issues by Ron Paul and force the media to discuss the topics due to the massive support he's received.

The storm of information continues and the gloves are off. It's proven a fundamental impossibility to really control information on the web but the pundits are out in full swing to flood outlets with disinformation. It's nothing new and the opposition seems to be at the ready.

Did Ron Paul just win Iowa?

COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA -- "I think Ron Paul just won Iowa," declared Mark Hansen, Ron Paul's Pottawattamie County coordinator. Here at a bar serving as the unofficial county headquarters of the Paul campaign, Hansen had just conceded that Paul would not win the popular vote in Iowa, but he also pointed out that after the straw polls, the precincts appointed delegates to the county conventions in March -- and that in every precinct in Pottawattamie, at least, two or three Ron Paul supporters volunteered to be delegates, and few other candidates' supporters volunteered.

Delegates at the county conventions help select delegates to the state convention, which then select delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Technically, tonight's vote was a straw poll, determining no delegates, but setting the tone. The only actions that actually could make a difference in electing delegates to the National Convention heavily favored Paul. Nobody will be watching in June, unless this election gets much more exciting, but Ron Paul might send more Iowa delegates to Orlando than any other candidate.

Source: Washington Examiner

YouTube Shenanigans: Ron Paul Ad Gets Distorted View Counts Before Iowa Caucus

It seems Youtube is back to it's same old tricks again by distorting the view counts of an ad published recently by Ron Paul's Presidential campaign team just before the Iowa Caucus kicks off. The video was uploaded on Dec. 28, 2011 as shown in the screenshot taken and as you can see, the view count remains at 303 views while it's received several thousand "likes."

To be perfectly clear, it is not abnormal to see the view count stop at 303 or 301 views when a video is becoming popular because this is done by the Youtube team intentionally while they verify the views are legitimate which is understandable. Typically, if a new video is becoming popular, the view count will be in real time up to 301 or 303 views then it will stop counting. Once Youtube verifies the legitimacy of the views, which usually takes a few hours to a day, the view count will be updated every few hours according to Youtube which is the typical experience as I've seen from all my uploads that have gained popularity. But this video was uploaded a week ago!

YouTube's Policy According To It's "Help Section" :

What is a view?

A view occurs when a person watches your video. In order to preserve accuracy in view counts, we identify irregular playbacks such as spam and remove these from the view count.

How often do view counts update?

Newly uploaded videos are updated in real time. When videos become popular, they are updated every few hours.

My view count isn't updating. What's happening?

For popular videos, the counts are updated every few hours; if you're still getting views, you should see them soon.

This isn't the first time this is happened to videos related to Ron Paul. Many people have had their videos removed completely by Youtube and some have even had their accounts deleted after uploading related videos about Ron Paul which Youtube has never responded to after inquiry.

It's obvious on some levels that Google (Google owns Youtube) has some political biased as strong supporters of the controversial SOPA bill and the Protect IP Act which have shown how easy politicians who have very little technical knowledge who wrote these bills were easily manipulated or lobbied into support for this type of legislation which would be detrimental to free speech on the internet. Ron Paul has stood strong against this sort of legislation citing the Constitution as the one place to look that should guarantee this type of control never be given to the federal government.

Limit The Age Of Government?

Generally, I like to think outside the box which is the same box that locks our minds and attitudes and sometimes even indoctrinates us into ideals of our time and right now, I'd like to address the issue of time. More specifically, I'd like to address generations and the politics surrounding generations. Although I have nothing to reference these ideas to and I'm assuming their isn't much to reference anyway as it is theoretical, it could potentially be a more important social issue than you would think.

Currently, serving in certain parts of the Government such as President, Senate, and Congress, you must be of certain age and I can understand the tendency to want to have someone more "senior" representing you and your beliefs in Washington but does that necessarily mean more knowledgeable? I would like to think so and typically is so, it would appear.

When you think about it, we all know corruption in politics runs deep and it would seem it runs deeper and deeper with the older generations still serving in Government. If you've already done your homework, you would already know that politicians like Sen. John McCain, V.P. Dick Cheney, and Sen. Joe Lieberman are older men who are especially corrupt in their own ways but similar in monetary kickbacks but all because they've been in high powered positions long enough to already be heavily involved in the circles of corruption. Simply put, I'd argue that the older you get and the longer you serve in a political position, especially a high power position, the more apt you'd become to corruption whether it would be under the table handouts, propaganda spins, and other activity in none interest to American society in general or that of any other nation.

Imagine for a moment that this sort of age policy were reversed and then I'll explain why. Imagine if their were a LIMIT on age while serving as a political representative. Currently, I believe you must be at least 35 years old to be able to run for President but imagine that 35 years old were the age limit to hold this position. Would it be so bad? Would this person be too ignorant to represent the people and understand real issues? Do you ever get the feeling that these old corrupt politicians argue over needless issues that have nothing to do with the current state of societal problems while ignoring what the younger generation already seems to typically understand as real issues in order to commit to positive progression for society in the future? I do.

When I see bills like SOPA and The Protect IP Act, I see some very ignorant and old politicians who've received a hefty handout from some lobbyist and is pushing for some bill that could be extremely detrimental to a free and open society. Do any of these guys even know what "IP" stands for in technical terms?

I doubt you would see this sort of policy among some critical thinking 20-35 year old representatives because the younger generation does typically understand technology and the younger generation understands the importance of free information as it's been the main source of our self-education. I doubt you would find these same representatives so trigger happy when it came to foreign policy. I doubt you would find nearly the same level of financial corruption as we currently put up with.

Using technology as an example again, you can't argue with the fact that the best of the best public tools and technology in the past 30 years that have been most useful for every day society has come from the young generation who typical had no financial motivation to develop these items and ideas. These ideas and developments usually get capitalized on by the circle of the older generation who doesn't care about anything other than how much money or control it gives them.

While I understand our first hesitations would stem from fear of lacking maturity, I also understand that their is a major disconnect when it comes to the new generation's politics and the older generation's politics. The question will have to ultimately be, who's politics and ideas will be more useful for our future as a nation and the future of humans in general? I'd conclude that the older generation is typically blinded by it's own indoctrination of "isms" and it's love for this game of social segregation and classes in this game of musical chairs we call life that they perpetuate. It's the same reason it took so damn long to find equal living standards for African Americans. If it were up to the the younger generation in that matter, it would have been much easier as we are more united with each other with little corrupt motivation in comparison.