Google-backed RAND report recommends infiltrating & subverting online conspiracy groups from within

a reply to: Dalamax

Same for me. And knowing the people that I listen to helps me doing this. An asshole won't change my opinion but someone I know a bit has better chances because of the respect earned. I am more inclined to listen.

There have been members here I literally despised because of their behavior and MO. But once I got (some of) them to know better, I started to value their thoughts and gave more attention to what they may be saying. All coupled with lot's and lot's of reflection.

I believe that if we do not reflect about ourselves or own opinions we stay static and can not ascend in knowledge or gain a bit more wisdom.

a reply to: LunaticPandora

MOST conspiracy sites have already been infiltrated by someone or something, everything from AI to disinformation agent's to terrorists and religious and cultist extremists have visited or even had a presence upon such sites.

There is an old saying, reader beware use your own discernment and common sense.

Note that during the roll out of Covid 19 mRNA vaccines there was a concerted effort to silence anything that questioned the true purpose behind the global program to inject something that was at best experimental and at worst using the over blown Covid pandemic to push onto the global population something that was not good for them.

At that time PRO vaccination voices were forced onto people by social media and people that questioned that view point were tarred nad feathered as Anti Vaxxers when in fact that is not actually true, most were simply rightly suspicious of why genuine vaccines were NOT being distributed and instead an experimental and potentially extremely dangerous substance WAS being pushed onto the global population, in other words many whom refused the mRNA Jabs would have had no qualm's about having a genuine ordinary vaccine.

Now to add to that we have governments looking to force the mRNA or something similar onto there people by as one suggestion states adding it to there water supply's for example.

What could go wrong, total power in the hands of the wrong people.

That wrong people are not a conspiracy they are real and they really are pushing agendas that are not good for us but are good for them.

Conspiracy sites are one of the last vestiges of free speech and if they can shut them down, subvert them completely etc they most certainly shall, they will even go so far as to use the UN to push that agenda which is not about helping people but about maintaining power in the hands of those very wrong people that currently have it.

Note that with the exception of the USA's attack upon Julian Assange and Wikileaks this attack upon conspiracy sites is not about national security but about the security of plot's and plans on a global not a national scale.

a reply to: Dalamax

It’s at best a controlled blueprint. We are forbidden from discussing and advocating some subjects, for the good of the whole surely, we are still presenting a sanitised version of our thoughts and opinions.

I will always argue we shouldn't have a blacklist of sites for known hoaxes that can't be used/discussed. That's no better than crying when someone uses a bitchute link. 9/10 might be bs but there is always that one that might not be. But more importantly, if you avert your eyes to the hoaxes, how do you know, truly, what they are?

a reply to: TDDAgain

I agree.🤣🤣

Seriously, some very valid points.
I compartmentalise my life and my thoughts and I'm different things to different people.

For all I am a very social and sociable person outside in the 'real world' I can still be rather guarded and only show certain parts of me to most people.
I can also be incredibly anti-social at times too, a bit of a contradiction.

How revealing I am with people here on ATS tends to depend on the subject being discussed and also the members I'm interacting with etc.
I like my anonymity on ATS but there's a few who know me a bit more than most.....and I have no doubt its the same for most of the regular posters on here.

Sure I sometimes engage in a bit of banter etc but I honestly try not to post simple inane agreement that adds no value to the thread.
I frequently fail, as I do with most things.
Of course it may be different if its a more light-hearted thread etc.

But getting back to the shills etc; I find it annoying when someone just posts the predictable 'I'm anti this or pro that' and offer nothing whatsoever tp support or substantiate.
All 'sides' have them and to be honest they bore the tits off me!

a reply to: schuyler

Hi Schuyler!

You don't have to have a sixth sense to perceive the 'tone' of a post

Know what I'm saying man?

Best wishes fellow forum member

a reply to: LunaticPandora

I think this have been active all along though, now promoting its necessary out in open is another part of the stragedy, the game of confusing the uniting process is then ready to kick on another level.. they dont want us figuring out the grand plan and actually have sway in it but who asks them anyhow, they are losing all the grounds as they cannot go backwards to fix their mountains of mistakes done..

originally posted by: schuyler
Doesn't matter. All you have to do is have a contrary opinion to the prevailing narrative and you are labeled a shill, a troll, or an agent by the ATS crowd with torches.

I would argue that what doesn't matter is what the official narrative is. That narrative changes all the time and it is enforced by the prevailing powers. You arguing in favor of the prevailing narrative isn't novel or an "underdog" position. It is a safe position that is backed by institutional support.

What's telling is the amount of effort that institutional support is putting in to ensuring the official narrative isn't challenged. They're putting real money and resources into making sure you can't challenge vaccines, white genocide, or even aliens.

Regardless to what extent any of those topics are true or not isn't really the point. The point is that they are putting inordinate effort into combating those challenges and there is no institutional risk to you for furthering the narrative the powers that be prefer.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuff
a reply to: LunaticPandora

This sounds like a conspiracy itself. A conspiracy against conspiracy theories.

You’re right, it’s pretty obvious that ATS is being targeted. They’re about as good at being convincing as they are at memeing.

Look for the ones who cherry pick their target topic. They ignore the hard questions and target the more absurd aspects of the theories. They adhere in to the party line and disrupt and derail all day long.

You are right.

The ones most likely to be targeting ATS are the ones who hit and run.

That is, purposely derail a thread, and maybe give one or two replies until the thread totally derails and never return to the thread, letting everyone harp on their first derailment post in a thread.

Then there are those who attack frequently, but also occasionally are on different sides of the same issue in different threads. When you see that you know there are most likely multiple people paid to be the person you think is the same one each time. But sentence structure and having opposite strong points of view in different threads is the biggest give away.

When typically snarky brief writers have a sudden change to serious and then the serious post is edited back to snark, that one for sure is a paid operative.

I know who I think at least 2 are, and once I decide a writer is a paid shill or operative I refuse to get sucked into their web, and won't even read their posts, on purpose and willfully ignore what they write entirely. Since I always ignore what they write and they have realized I won't answer their jabs they have basically given up on trying to get to me and leave my comments/posts alone. That is the best way to handle those you decide are paid shills, operatives, or trolls.

Don't worry folks. At least yall can know I'm not some government backed agent. I'm against authoritarianism around the world. There's not a country in the world that has a government I support. Same goes for CEOS and their companies.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: schuyler

Know what I'm saying man?

No.

originally posted by: LunaticPandora

Regardless to what extent any of those topics are true or not isn't really the point. The point is that they are putting inordinate effort into combating those challenges and there is no institutional risk to you for furthering the narrative the powers that be prefer.

Who are "they" ? When you get right down to it, it's all smoke and mirrors. There is no "they" there.

a reply to: schuyler

Who are "they" ? When you get right down to it, it's all smoke and mirrors. There is no "they" there.

Seems to be pretty well spelled out in the article.

Google, the RAND corporation, and the US Government by extension. That US government seems to be representing the World Economic Forum and other internationalist/globalist interests.

There is, in fact, a "they".

a reply to: schuyler

This is so true:


"The whole issue does not work well. For example, try posting a positive view on vaccinations on ATS, pointing out how the shrill extremism of this issue is contrary to a reasoned discussion of the issues and just see what the reaction is. Anyone who is paying attention to the "state of the board" will know it's not worth the grief to attempt such a discussion because you will get shouted down by people who seem to have a strong emotional and vested opinion on the subject such that contrary opinions are not allowed. You may as well yell, "Jesus is a crock" in a church or "Jesus is my Savior" at an atheist convention".

It's like an article of religious faith for some and anything said by any poster who dares to question claims they make are treated like heretics and get shouted down.

It seems that it's the anti vaxx crowd that often resorts to personal attacks like calling other posters shills, trolls, etc.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Be that as it may the fact remains that opposition to your opinion on ATS isn't the same thing as institutional opposition to opinions on ATS that don't align with yours.

What the article demonstrates is institutional opposition not individual opposition that you experience here.

In other words, your opinions are the safe, institutionally-backed opinions whereas the individual opposition to your opinions on ATS by ATS members are not safe and are being targeted.

a reply to: LunaticPandora

"In other words, your opinions are the safe, institutionally-backed opinions whereas the individual opposition to your opinions on ATS by ATS members are not safe and are being targeted."

Not sure that I understand that?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

The complaint by the poster you replied to was, in essence, that the opposition to his opinions on ATS are a problem akin to what is discussed in the OP. You appeared to agree.

Regardless of whether the membership agrees with you or not, however, isn't the point. The opinions the poster you replied to (pro-vaccination and what not) are institutionally-backed opinions that are safe from the dragnet described in the OP article.

Whereas opinions counter to the institutionally-backed narrative are not safe and are being targeted by the aforementioned institutions.

In other words, your opinions that align with the official narrative are safe regardless of opposition you experience on ATS. Those opposing your institutionally-backed opinions are NOT safe and are being targeted per the OP article.

An observers reflection on their perception

I try to hear the message rather then listening to the words. It helps me consider argument by it’s weight and not it’s delivery.

a reply to: TDDAgain

I would imagine the banning is to try and reduce needless bickering amongst out membership? Some of us have been known To get quite obtuse

I agree that there is possibly some gems being lost to ATS.

a reply to: oddscreenname

Let them infiltrate. I'm a washed up old f**k who can barely open a jar now. No threat to anything but a box of cookies.