Originally posted by KineticX
The general theme of the document is outlining ways to counter legitimate free speech from existing.....so im confused on what that has to do with disagreements in content..

The "Identifying Cointelpro" material presented, in one form or another, has been seen here before. There is nothing new in the opening post.

Every single point may be easily parsed as an elaborate effort in prose authored by someone who has encountered (in their opinion) numerous individuals who tend not to reflexively accept their suppositions as probable.

For example:

Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING' -- this may also be attributed to the majority of responders simply not believing, or caring about the points presented.

Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING' -- this seems highly contrived, and again, echoes the paranoid tendencies of someone who believes their musing should be more widely accepted, or, the result of someone who disagrees with more broadly accepted notions.

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION' -- this may be much more attributed to a diversity of participation, a wide range of people who think differently, than any organized effort to diffuse the subject matter.

Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION' -- evidence? This can be applied to any venue -- from letters to the editors in newspapers to Twitter -- and again is more of a node to the diversity of opinion from those predisposed to share their opinions.

Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING' -- no surprise here. The Internet has given birth to those who misbehave online as a hobby. This applies everywhere, and is human nature.

Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL' -- this is the weakest of arguments as the phenomena of those who become moderators tend to post less-and-less has been widely observed on these fora.


Contrivances. Nothing more.

Originally posted by IndieA
That's just what an agent would say.

One could similarly postulate that spreading an irrational dislike of anyone exhibiting opinions contrary to extreme conspiracy suppositions would be a valid tactic of an "agent provocateur" so as to foster an ever-increasing internal atmosphere that would be easy for "outsiders" to ridicule and dismiss.

I should add...

Among the few documented cases of "official" Counter Intelligence Programs, agents have taken on personas that support or provoke those being "infiltrated."

For example, the FBI's well-documented CoIntelPro efforts among the 1970's Los Angles "community groups" literally resulted in the gang wars as a result of the intentional provocation.

With that in mind, "agents" are far more likely to be those who post the most extreme conspiracy theories as the seed-phase of a methodology to track how such theories spread and by whom. Those who "ridicule" such theories are likely just bored "Internet trolls" entertaining themselves.

Nice, good list, and I would just like to say that all of those strategies will fail if people are simply informed and not mindless goons, which is why I'm thinking it is a complete waste of time to even think of doing such tactics on a conspiracy website.

Very nice thread OP. I always wonder on that one comment, that one comment that makes me want to move on to the next thread, was made on purpose to make me do just that.

Some comments are so irritating to me that it makes me want to move on to the next thread. I wonder if that is the mind game that I have just ate the bait hook line and sinker.

I will now try to skip a few posts and keep reading, because maybe, just maybe it was a tactic to make me move to another topic when all I really had to do is ignore the possible brain ninjas.

Originally posted by wiredamerican
Very nice thread OP. I always wonder on that one comment, that one comment that makes me want to move on to the next thread, was made on purpose to make me do just that.

Some comments are so irritating to me that it makes me want to move on to the next thread. I wonder if that is the mind game that I have just ate the bait hook line and sinker.

I will now try to skip a few posts and keep reading, because maybe, just maybe it was a tactic to make me move to another topic when all I really had to do is ignore the possible brain ninjas.

On top of the debunking conspiraces9with no offered validation) I see too many of replies that just disgust, and or are just plain rude for no reason at all. Can't let them win! Hard to ignore, but I do, and focus on the ones that i feel have meaning.