Conspiracy Theory There actually are people (State and non-State actors) who ARE brainwashing you, and most of you don't actually know it's happening.

Remove this Banner Ad

Malifice said:
I must have missed that in the movie 'the Social Network'. Exactly where in that film did the CIA get involved?
Click to expand...
The movie The Social Network? After the initial $500K from crypto fascist Peter Thiel the next $13 million bucks to fund Facebook came from Accel Partners, that's James Breyer who sat on the board of BNN with Gilman Louie who founded In Q Tel. The next lot came from Howard Cox's venture capital firm. He sat on the board of In Q Tel. Did they mention any of that in The Social Network?

www.cbsnews.com

Social Media Is a Tool of the CIA. Seriously

The CIA publishes a helpful list of press releases on all the social media ventures it sponsors via its technology investment arm, In-Q-Tel.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com

 
Malifice said:
They're the ******* definitions of capitalism and socialism.

Socialism is a POLTICIAL AND ECONOMIC theory that states that the means of production should be owned and controlled by the State.

Capitalism is a POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC theory that states (in opposition to Socialism) that the means of production should be owned and controlled by the free market (in private hands).

If you're arguing that a private collective (a group of hippies living on a commune out in Byron Bay) sharing food and labor with each other is 'socialism' then you're wrong because:

a) There is nothing stopping those Hippies from selling their s**t for profit, or leaving the commune, moving to Sydney and getting a job in a bank or whatever.
b) Ergo there is no State control of the means of production or their labor, and they're free to sell s**t in the private market if they want to.

It's a macro version of a socialist State (in that with respect to the other hippies, you're in a commune) entered into voluntarily, and presumably there is some mechanism of dispute management, laws around the property, working hours and so forth in effect (or control exercised by some entity within the collective, or some form of collective decision making).

In addition, note how you can go live in your commune/ collective right now if you desire. There is literally nothing stopping you from doing so. Go nuts.

That's the advantage of a Capitalist State. In a Socialist State the inverse is not also true.

And I dont want the Government telling me what to do with my labor, my profits, my ideas, or my work. Those things are my business, and If I can make a good living for myself doing whatever it is that I do, and am harming no-one else in so doing, it's no-one elses business but my own how I live my life.
Click to expand...
Listen if you can't tell the difference between authoritarianism and something like democratic socialism thats your problem.
 
Malifice said:
Yes, that's exactly what it is.



Tribes have leaders (chiefs, or councils of elders etc). They have laws, and penalties for breaking those laws. They enforce those laws over other members of the tribe, over a certain territory of the tribe.

Name one tribe in history that lacked laws and customs, and a mechanism for enforcing them.

Just one.
Click to expand...



Tribal societies don't necessarily have central authority and plenty have societies where you can tell the chief to gagf if you want and there is nothing that chief can do about it. Discovering this appalled the French when they colonised the NE of North America several hundred years ago.

i can't name them exactly as I don't have access to my notes right now but i will chase them up. Feel free to remind me if I don't get round to it in the next couple of weeks. IIRC One example is from the Huron language group.

Anyway that isn't the state. The state and a nation or a people are two different things and it doesn't matter how often you say they aren't you will still be wrong about that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

owen87 said:
Which brings us back here again;
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with this discussion tho? There are plenty of other threads that discuss socialism and capitalism I'm sure. the only reason i brought it up is because Mal thinks socialism is always a function of a tyrannical state and I reckon that is a result of him suffering a similar sort of brainwashing as the sort he's talking about in this thread.

i'm not really interested in whether or not what works in small groups works in big ones. Its got **** all to do with my original point.
 
Malifice said:
You cant equate the Russian disinfo campaigns, and use of metadata (both domestically, and abroad) with ours, or the USA's. They're in no way comparable. We monitor the internet and seek to block disinfo from foreign actors (and even that we do poorly). The Russians do a lot more than that.
Click to expand...

www.theguardian.com

Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media

Military's 'sock puppet' software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
ferball said:
Tribal societies don't necessarily have central authority and plenty have societies where you can tell the chief to gagf if you want and there is nothing that chief can do about it.
Click to expand...

Other than bash your head in with an axe.

Do you think the State should control the means of production via Socialsm, like Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR, Maoist China and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge did.

Yes or No.
 
Malifice said:
You're equating again.

They're not in any way comparable in scope.
Click to expand...
How do you know?

If anything that is the model IRA followed.
 
Malifice said:
Other than bash your head in with an axe.
Click to expand...

Yeah it doesn't always work like that. I named one language group with a reputation for anti authoritarianism and I can chase up more but it might take a while to find my notes.

Your attitude here is verging on racism.

Malifice said:
Do you think the State should control the means of production via Socialsm, like Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR, Maoist China and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge did.

Yes or No.
Click to expand...

Not like those places because I'm not in favour of authoritarian governments - be that capitalist like Pinochet's Chile or Maoist. Or imperial like the Dutch east india company or client states of modern oil and gas companies in the so called developing world for that matter. But socialism like Norway (their democratically elected government owns 2/3 of their gas resources via ownership in gas companies), middle east nations with their energy resources etc etc. Nothing wrong with that.

We should nationalise our energy resources and probably most of our other mineral resources too. Its ludicrous that a nation with the largest gas reserves on earth makes its people pay more for gas than what charge to ship it off shore. If you or Gina Reinhart have a problem with that tough. We could seize 5 of her 6 billion dollars of worth and pump it into our national treasury but it would still leave her a billionaire (by accident of birth). What the hell is wrong with that?

You claim the only model for socialism is the brutal sort of dictatorship we saw under Pol Pot or capitalist regimes like Pinochet's but that is false. You're spreading the sort of propaganda you claim the Russians are spreading.
 
I just thought of one more capitalist nation with an authoritarian government, oppressive powers and a history of murdering journalists.

Can anyone guess what it is?
 
ferball said:
Okay cool. I think election fraud in the US is rampant. As is voter suppression etc etc. But the presidential elections are probably the least sus. That's why they have the electoral college - to moderate the will of the people. Also .... the 2000 election probably wasn't legit given the result came down to a few hundred wrongly counted votes in Florida (and the college.)

But that's kind of my point.

Governments interfere with other governments all the time. None of this so called election interference holds a candle to what happened in Chile 50 years ago either. Anyway....

Its almost taboo to question anything about the situation in Ukraine over the last 15 years now. How much of this is a result of the sort of brainwashing this thread is trying to point out? Have you seen this?:



The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine emphasises the role social media plays in modern-day warfare, with conflict occurring in both the physical and information environments. There is a large body of work on identifying malicious cyber-activity, but less focusing on the effect this activity has on the overall conversation, especially with regards to the Russia/Ukraine Conflict. Here, we employ a variety of techniques including information theoretic measures, sentiment and linguistic analysis, and time series techniques to understand how bot activity influences wider online discourse. By aggregating account groups we find significant information flows from bot-like accounts to non-bot accounts with behaviour differing between sides. Pro-Russian non-bot accounts are most influential overall, with information flows to a variety of other account groups. No significant outward flows exist from pro-Ukrainian non-bot accounts, with significant flows from pro-Ukrainian bot accounts into pro-Ukrainian non-bot accounts. We find that bot activity drives an increase in conversations surrounding angst (with p = 2.450 x 1e-4) as well as those surrounding work/governance (with p = 3.803 x 1e-18). Bot activity also shows a significant relationship with non-bot sentiment (with p = 3.76 x 1e-4), where we find the relationship holds in both directions. This work extends and combines existing techniques to quantify how bots are influencing people in the online conversation around the Russia/Ukraine invasion. It opens up avenues for researchers to understand quantitatively how these malicious campaigns operate, and what makes them impactful.

It isn't as simple as "Russian troll farms are brainwashing people."

I don't want to make this about the war in Ukraine, or socialism vs capitalism for that matter.

I think what Mal is pointing out is very important but I don't think its a one way flow from Russia or Prigozhin's IT warfare setup.

This stuff is used to influence opinion on everything from climate change or CSG to what products people purchase, and the same techniques are applied across the board.
Click to expand...
Yep, governments try to interfere or exert influence or disruption all the time - which is why the US (and Hillary's) bleating about 2016 is hilarious. And why its still a legitimate result - people voted, as we've said.

Same case for Ukraine 2014. I just find the desire to paint the Nuland recording as proof the US just installed who they wanted extremely disingenuous, and that take gets rolled out fairly regularly. Its just 2 US state department hacks discussing who would be best for their own interests if they had their druthers. Even if they took it a step further and ran some kind of influence or disruption campaign (like the Russians did in 2016) to help achieve the result they wanted, the people still voted, 1000s of international observers were present with no irregularities reported. The election is still legitimate.
 
bourbons said:
Yep, governments try to interfere or exert influence or disruption all the time - which is why the US (and Hillary's) bleating about 2016 is hilarious. And why its still a legitimate result - people voted, as we've said.

Same case for Ukraine 2014. I just find the desire to paint the Nuland recording as proof the US just installed who they wanted extremely disingenuous, and that take gets rolled out fairly regularly. Its just 2 US state department hacks discussing who would be best for their own interests if they had their druthers. Even if they took it a step further and ran some kind of influence or disruption campaign (like the Russians did in 2016) to help achieve the result they wanted, the people still voted, 1000s of international observers were present with no irregularities reported. The election is still legitimate.
Click to expand...
Honestly I think we're coming form the same place with this election interference thing.
 
ferball said:
Honestly I think we're coming form the same place with this election interference thing.
Click to expand...
Pretty much, and yep certainly as it relates to outside influence.

Although I wouldn't call election fraud "rampant" in the US (but voter suppression and gerrymandering, yes). Thanks to Trump's shtick the 2020 election was the most heavily scrutinised in history, and despite the constant claims and assurances that there totally was fraud on a wide scale and a solid 3 years of looking for it they've come up with precisely squat ¯\(ツ)/¯
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bourbons said:
Pretty much, and yep certainly as it relates to outside influence.

Although I wouldn't call election fraud "rampant" in the US (but voter suppression and gerrymandering, yes). Thanks to Trump's shtick the 2020 election was the most heavily scrutinised in history, and despite the constant claims and assurances that there totally was fraud on a wide scale and a solid 3 years of looking for it they've come up with precisely squat ¯\(ツ)/¯
Click to expand...
I know someone who investigates election fraud in the US, or so they claim.

They reckon presidential elections and federal elections in general are the least likely to be affected by outright voter fraud (as opposed to suppression and gerrymandering), state elections are also less likely to be rorted by country elections and the elections for positions that get appointed in Australia (everything from judges to that position Homer Simpson got as sanitation manager,) are much more likely to be because there isn't the same level of scrutiny and what have you. Basically corruption is easier in smaller localities etc etc. A bit like the way police corruption in small towns used to happen and as a result country police recruits are no longer sent back to their home towns after training/graduation in NSW.

Altho they reckon there may have been some corruption or vote rigging in the 2016 election, in favour of Trump, and also at the DNC. I dunno how they measure it tho., Exit polls have some weight but theres other stuff too. I don't really follow it all.
 
Malifice said:
No, name a Socialist State (means of production owned and controlled by the State) that was not also a tyrannical shithole.

Just one will do.

Here are recent ones:

Cuba.
The USSR and its constituent counties.
North Korea.
Maoist China.
Cambodia.
Vietnam.

Give me one State (Socialist) where you think it's all roses.
Click to expand...
Mate you're illustrating my point for me.

You're brainwashed into thinking the only way socialism functions is thru an authoritarian state.

JFC.

You're the victim of a 100 year old US psy op.
 
ferball said:
Mate you're illustrating my point for me.

You're brainwashed into thinking the only way socialism functions is thru an authoritarian state.

JFC.

You're the victim of a 100 year old US psy op.
Click to expand...

You're saying these things but haven't yet provided examples of where it's actually worked in a real-world setting for a large population?
 
owen87 said:
You're saying these things but haven't yet provided examples of where it's actually worked in a real-world setting for a large population?
Click to expand...
Norway owns 2/3 of its gas resources. By definition that's socialism.
 
Also in Cuba, pre Castro's revolution the literacy rate was 10%, there was no public medicine and the nations biggest employer was the sex industry, much of which catered to deviant seppos wanting to **** underage kids.

By the standards of ordinary people pre and post Castro, socialism worked and capitalism didn't.
 
Nothing said:
And the rest of Norway's economy?
Click to expand...
Its obviously an economy that mixes socialist elements - ie state control of the means of production, with a market.

But the idea that this can't happen is just ludicrous.

There seems to be this worldview that socialism and communism as practised by the communist states is the same thing. It isn't but 100 years of brainwashing has convinced people it is.

And again the idea that a particular political ideology, rather than the type of state, is what determines tyranny is another form of brainwashing. Obviously states than centralise power in a few hands and have no means to moderate or regulate that state power will cause more problems for their own citizens/subjects than states that don't.

But for some reason people ignore this and instead focus on the distribution of resources.

Yopu asked me for examples earlier and since we've got to the point where this discussion is ongoing the most obvious and first one I thought of was Winstanley's Diggers.
 
ferball said:
Norway owns 2/3 of its gas resources. By definition that's socialism.
Click to expand...

ferball said:
Its obviously an economy that mixes socialist elements - ie state control of the means of production, with a market.

But the idea that this can't happen is just ludicrous.

There seems to be this worldview that socialism and communism as practised by the communist states is the same thing. It isn't but 100 years of brainwashing has convinced people it is.

And again the idea that a particular political ideology, rather than the type of state, is what determines tyranny is another form of brainwashing. Obviously states than centralise power in a few hands and have no means to moderate or regulate that state power will cause more problems for their own citizens/subjects than states that don't.

But for some reason people ignore this and instead focus on the distribution of resources.

Yopu asked me for examples earlier and since we've got to the point where this discussion is ongoing the most obvious and first one I thought of was Winstanley's Diggers.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Norway is the best illustration of a 'socialist' country. Certainly there's a stronger element of welfare than many other countries, but to try to stretch that to use it as an example of a socialist country is taking it a bit far. It's still fundamentally a capitalist country with private ownership and such things, just a well regulated form.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Conspiracy Theory There actually are people (State and non-State actors) who ARE brainwashing you, and most of you don't actually know it's happening.

Similar threads

Exe Gesis
Conspiracy Theory The Attempted * Assassinations of Donald Trump
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
334
Views
5K
peetoo
peetoo
HaveCrankOnMe
Conspiracy Theory The strange death of Loretta Fuddy
Replies
5
Views
701
Exe Gesis
Exe Gesis

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top