John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist

[Michael Griffith]

On 10/7/2024 at 10:01 AM, W. Niederhut said:

          McAdams devoted a great deal of attention to smearing Col. L. Fletcher Prouty as a "crackpot," and "anti-Semite," during his internet career, in a similar fashion to the way that Fred Litwin has been smearing Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and James DiEugenio since 2018.    

A number of liberal authors have also cited evidence that Prouty was a crackpot and an anti-Semite, including the Anti-Defamation League and Chip Berlet (a former VP of the far-left National Lawyers Guild). They have done so because the evidence against Prouty is so substantial and compelling.

Here is a good article by Chris Owen on Prouty's shameful defense of L. Ron Hubbard's fraudulent military service claims:

RON THE "WAR HERO" - The Intelligence Connection? (cmu.edu)

Chris Owen's online book on Hubbard can be found here:

RON THE "WAR HERO" - Contents (cmu.edu)

I do not believe that John McAdams was a CIA propagandist. I got to know him a bit in the early 2000s. I think he viewed the conspiracy position as an attack on America and on American institutions. I debated him many, many times in online discussions. I wrote an article in response to many of his anti-conspiracy claims. I would not be shocked to learn that he was a CIA asset in some way, but I do not believe he was. 

Edited 8 hours ago by Michael Griffith

[James DiEugenio]

John McAdams' smear of Prouty was simply awful. And as with Epstein, it was a way of getting at Oliver Stone's film JFK.  The irony being that the info Prouty gave Stone on VIetnam and the 112th was accurate.

But it went further since McAdams was friends with Gamamiel who controlled the JFK entries on wiki.

Now that McAdams is gone, the Prouty entry at Wiki is not as bad.

Here is a good Prouty site

https://prouty.org/

Edited 22 hours ago by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

John Simkin wanted McAdams and his ilk to become members of this forum, so that their ARGUMENTS could be challenged and possibly destroyed. That was the purpose of this forum--an all-hands-on-deck-let's hash-this-out-and-get-somewhere forum where a wide variety of arguments could be discussed. He grew discouraged, however, over time, by the prevalence among some to attack those with whom they disagreed or had a problem. As stated, he DEFENDED John McAdams when I thought I found some dirt on the guy. 

So, no, he didn't want to lure McAdams here to play GOTCHA! He wanted McAdams here to discuss issues regarding the Kennedy assassination. A key part of the forum at the beginning was a section in which authors could come and discuss their books. This dried up rather quickly because most members chose to fill these threads with "Somebody told me" and "Somebody else said" type stuff, and the authors were forced to discuss what others had said and not their own books. 

So, long story short. John would not have subjected members to questions about their motivations, and would have instead focused on questions about their ideas. The forum rule about questioning people's background was designed not just for the benefit of LNers, but everyone. John had seen how people such as Tink Thompson and myself were routinely attacked by people such as Fetzer as CIA defenders for simply disagreeing with their batshit claims. If you claimed the evidence failed to support that the limo came to a complete stop in the plaza you were a CIA puppet or shill. If you failed to support that Lee Harvey Oswald was photographed on the front steps in the Altgens photo--but that the photo was altered in a secret CIA lab hidden amongst the cars in the depository parking lot to disguise his face--you were a CIA puppet or shill. And so on. It was nauseating. So a rule was needed. 

And it works both ways. I'd had many talks with some of the most famous researchers by that time and the consensus was that, if anyone among the research community was put here to disrupt, embarrass, and discredit us, it was not someone like McAdams, but someone like Fetzer. 

SO...do we really wanna open that door--where we make it okay to accuse our fellow CTs of being sent here to disrupt? And have the forum collapse onto itself in an orgy of finger-pointing? And make a joke of John Simkin's dream?

So let's do some fact checking.

The title of W's thread is "John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist" sort of invoking this forum "Faith of our father's " argument to justify his IMO, Witch hunt accusations.

So Pat is directly refuting W's characterization and says that was never Simkin's  viewpoint .

So W. what direct evidence do you have that Simkin thought that McAdams was a CIA propagandist??

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

 Are we now forbidden from even discussing putative CIA propaganda on Simkin's Education Forum?

Oh so you're a victim now W.?

It's you who is sticking your butt into everybody else's business and trying to ensure forum "hegemony."

I'll tell you what I saw.

IMO, The Litwin thread had the makings of a good hearty discussion concerning Garrison. Then  a number of LNers and neutralists voiced approval of Litwin's (who IMO has  spent a couple of years just slinking around here and not contributing anything) "coming out." Then W. progressively poisons the atmosphere with first innuendo then more direct accusations of his opposition being sponsored by the CIA. 

So at last we get some hint that Litwin's prepared to discuss these issues. And there was some debate as Jim gets actively involved attacking Litwin and his previous statements and associations, and Litwin responds in kind with a bunch of links, which is fair game for both if we could eventually center the discussion on specific points. 

While the bulk of your comments W. were involving "Operation Mockingbird" . How did we get on that? Because you're implying the opposition are paid disinformation agents! Then  the thread becomes hijacked  because a number of people, including myself become concerned about your overstepping, and we spent 15 pages trying to debate if this discussion can happen at all. This is simply not your job as moderator.

And while there were some good discussions about that, that unfortunately I don't think will go anywhere, that was clearly not the intention of the thread.

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

    Geez...  Pat Speer and Kirk Gallaway both need to go back and re-read the EF archival link on my lead post on this thread, in which I refer directly to John Simkin's 2005 comments about John McAdams being a CIA propagandist, and Simkin's broader concerns about CIA propaganda on the internet.

      At this point, I don't believe that Pat Speer is honestly and accurately representing John Simkin's true opinions about John McAdams and other CIA propagandists on the internet.

       Perhaps others have noticed that Pat Speer has repeatedly downplayed and denied the history of CIA disinformation psy ops relating to the JFK assassination.

       Pat Speer needs to follow my example by posting John Simkin's actual comments, to back up his claims about Simkin's view of John McAdams and Operation Mockingbird.

Edited 23 hours ago by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

    "I am pleased to announce that my campaign against the blocking of my page on Operation Mockingbird at Google has been successful. It has been restored to the Google database. (It now appears at 3rd in the ranking). So also has my page on Frank Wisner, the man who established Mockingbird. Another person blocked, Mary Pinchot Meyer, is also back in (although John McAdams’ CIA disinformation page is still ranked at number 1)."

    -- John Simkin/ June 14, 2005 (Education Forum)

 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Pat litterally said, I quote : "It should be pointed out, moreover, that when I brought this to Simkin's attention, he, John Simkin, who suspected McAdams had CIA ties,..." etc (emphasis in bold is mine)

IMO that´s pretty clear

[Greg Doudna]

Dr. Niederhut, it’s not discussion of the phenomenon that is the problem it’s your naming of names accusing people of things with no proof. Does it give you no qualm of conscience at all to consider what if you’re wrong in labeling and damaging someone innocent?

Suppose you label someone innocent of the accusation you make—where there was no process, no vetting through fellow peer moderators, no mechanism or guardrails against abuse or a (hypothetical) irresponsible moderator?

From my point of view, my issue if there was a hidden hand, cia or other paid relationship would be the lack of disclosure. I would still support reading and critically discussing any writings or publications, especially if, if hypothetically there were real cia connected actors, they would likely have access to better documents, sources, photos, evidence, and information. I mean here information, not disinformation.

If there is a real issue of undisclosed paid operatives, convene moderators and consider an intelligent policy to address that concern through process, perhaps formalizing an ethical obligation honor system request that sources of funding for JFK research be disclosed if so.

Edited 17 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Keven Hofeling]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

So let's do some fact checking.

The title of W's thread is "John Simkin Thought John McAdams Was a CIA Propagandist" sort of invoking this forum "Faith of our father's " argument to justify his IMO, Witch hunt accusations.

So Pat is directly refuting W's characterization and says that was never Simkin's  viewpoint .

So W. what direct evidence do you have that Simkin thought that McAdams was a CIA propagandist??

Oh so you're a victim now W.?

It's you who is sticking your butt into everybody else's business and trying to ensure forum "hegemony."

I'll tell you what I saw.

IMO, The Litwin thread had the makings of a good hearty discussion concerning Garrison. Then  a number of LNers and neutralists voiced approval of Litwin's (who IMO has  spent a couple of years just slinking around here and not contributing anything) "coming out." Then W. progressively poisons the atmosphere with first innuendo then more direct accusations of his opposition being sponsored by the CIA. 

So at last we get some hint that Litwin's prepared to discuss these issues. And there was some debate as Jim gets actively involved attacking Litwin and his previous statements and associations, and Litwin responds in kind with a bunch of links, which is fair game for both if we could eventually center the discussion on specific points. 

While the bulk of your comments W. were involving "Operation Mockingbird" . How did we get on that? Because you're implying the opposition are paid disinformation agents! Then  the thread becomes hijacked  because a number of people, including myself become concerned about your overstepping, and we spent 15 pages trying to debate if this discussion can happen at all. This is simply not your job as moderator.

And while there were some good discussions about that, that unfortunately I don't think will go anywhere, that was clearly not the intention of the thread.

To the contrary, Mr. Gallaway, what I think is most obvious about this thread is that when multiple participants quite justifiably raised the issue of covert manipulation and interference by U.S. intelligence agencies in the First Amendment protected free speech activities of researchers the exact same cast of characters that on other threads have repeatedly attempted to deflect and divert attention from this very important aspect of the history of the JFKA have again engaged in identical tactics to shut the discussion down. It is simply undeniable that there is a long sordid history of disinformation and propaganda operations calculated to obfuscate incriminating evidence of government coverup through various nefarious covert means which violate both the spirit and the letter of American democracy and the rule of law, and that there are immense financial expenditures being devoted to these ends. 

 

While it would appear that you wish to discourage researchers from discussing and inquiring further into this alarming state of affairs, and would have us dismiss it as a "witch hunt," others, such as myself, recognize it as being a subsidiary element of the JFKA crime itself, and wish to unravel and expose it into obscurity, as the consequences of such government abuses of power represent a dire threat to the American system of government and to the ideal of democracy itself.

It befuddles and perplexes me that one as seemingly bright and articulate as yourself -- which also applies to the cast of characters who automatically spring up to defend the crimes of the national security state in these threads each and every time this particular issue arises -- do not appear to recognize the critical interests that are put at stake by these government transgressions. "Move along; there's nothing to see here" seems to be the message of such active measures, and there is nothing about it that makes any objective sense to me, when taken at face value.

In any event, and pursuant to your stated objective of "fact checking," Mr. Gallaway, what I would like to see you "fact check" and debunk is the following which represents a fleeting glimpse into the monstrosity that has been brought into existence by member nation states of the NATO alliance to destroy the free speech activities and inquiries of their citizen populations (of course, such monstrosities exist in the autocratic nations of the world, but that is the fundamental point -- it shouldn't exist or be tolerated here) :

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. <!--more-->

Glenn Greenwald

February 24 2014, 6:25 p.m.

One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

By publishing these stories one by one, our NBC reporting highlighted some of the key, discrete revelations: the monitoring of YouTube and Blogger, the targeting of Anonymous with the very same DDoS attacks they accuse “hacktivists” of using, the use of “honey traps” (luring people into compromising situations using sex) and destructive viruses. But, here, I want to focus and elaborate on the overarching point revealed by all of these documents: namely, that these agencies are attempting to control, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and in doing so, are compromising the integrity of the internet itself.

Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums. Here is one illustrative list of tactics from the latest GCHQ document we’re publishing today:

Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:

Then there are the tactics used to destroy companies the agency targets:

GCHQ describes the purpose of JTRIG in starkly clear terms: “using online techniques to make something happen in the real or cyber world,” including “information ops (influence or disruption).”

Critically, the “targets” for this deceit and reputation-destruction extend far beyond the customary roster of normal spycraft: hostile nations and their leaders, military agencies, and intelligence services. In fact, the discussion of many of these techniques occurs in the context of using them in lieu of “traditional law enforcement” against people suspected (but not charged or convicted) of ordinary crimes or, more broadly still, “hacktivism”, meaning those who use online protest activity for political ends.

The title page of one of these documents reflects the agency’s own awareness that it is “pushing the boundaries” by using “cyber offensive” techniques against people who have nothing to do with terrorism or national security threats, and indeed, centrally involves law enforcement agents who investigate ordinary crimes:

No matter your views on Anonymous, “hacktivists” or garden-variety criminals, it is not difficult to see how dangerous it is to have secret government agencies being able to target any individuals they want – who have never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes – with these sorts of online, deception-based tactics of reputation destruction and disruption. There is a strong argument to make, as Jay Leiderman demonstrated in the Guardian in the context of the Paypal 14 hacktivist persecution, that the “denial of service” tactics used by hacktivists result in (at most) trivial damage (far less than the cyber-warfare tactics favored by the US and UK) and are far more akin to the type of political protest protected by the First Amendment.

The broader point is that, far beyond hacktivists, these surveillance agencies have vested themselves with the power to deliberately ruin people’s reputations and disrupt their online political activity even though they’ve been charged with no crimes, and even though their actions have no conceivable connection to terrorism or even national security threats. As Anonymous expert Gabriella Coleman of McGill University told me, “targeting Anonymous and hacktivists amounts to targeting citizens for expressing their political beliefs, resulting in the stifling of legitimate dissent.” Pointing to this study she published, Professor Coleman vehemently contested the assertion that “there is anything terrorist/violent in their actions.”

Government plans to monitor and influence internet communications, and covertly infiltrate online communities in order to sow dissension and disseminate false information, have long been the source of speculation. Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein, a close Obama adviser and the White House’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote a controversial paper in 2008 proposing that the US government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites, as well as other activist groups.

Sunstein also proposed sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups” which spread what he views as false and damaging “conspiracy theories” about the government. Ironically, the very same Sunstein was recently named by Obama to serve as a member of the NSA review panel created by the White House, one that – while disputing key NSA claims – proceeded to propose many cosmetic reforms to the agency’s powers (most of which were ignored by the President who appointed them).

But these GCHQ documents are the first to prove that a major western government is using some of the most controversial techniques to disseminate deception online and harm the reputations of targets. Under the tactics they use, the state is deliberately spreading lies on the internet about whichever individuals it targets, including the use of what GCHQ itself calls “false flag operations” and emails to people’s families and friends. Who would possibly trust a government to exercise these powers at all, let alone do so in secret, with virtually no oversight, and outside of any cognizable legal framework?

Then there is the use of psychology and other social sciences to not only understand, but shape and control, how online activism and discourse unfolds. Today’s newly published document touts the work of GCHQ’s “Human Science Operations Cell,” devoted to “online human intelligence” and “strategic influence and disruption”:

 

Under the title “Online Covert Action”, the document details a variety of means to engage in “influence and info ops” as well as “disruption and computer net attack,” while dissecting how human beings can be manipulated using “leaders,” “trust,” “obedience” and “compliance”:

The documents lay out theories of how humans interact with one another, particularly online, and then attempt to identify ways to influence the outcomes – or “game” it:

 

 

We submitted numerous questions to GCHQ, including: (1) Does GCHQ in fact engage in “false flag operations” where material is posted to the Internet and falsely attributed to someone else?; (2) Does GCHQ engage in efforts to influence or manipulate political discourse online?; and (3) Does GCHQ’s mandate include targeting common criminals (such as boiler room operators), or only foreign threats?

As usual, they ignored those questions and opted instead to send their vague and nonresponsive boilerplate: “It is a longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All our operational processes rigorously support this position.”

These agencies’ refusal to “comment on intelligence matters” – meaning: talk at all about anything and everything they do – is precisely why whistleblowing is so urgent, the journalism that supports it so clearly in the public interest, and the increasingly unhinged attacks by these agencies so easy to understand. Claims that government agencies are infiltrating online communities and engaging in “false flag operations” to discredit targets are often dismissed as conspiracy theories, but these documents leave no doubt they are doing precisely that.

Whatever else is true, no government should be able to engage in these tactics: what justification is there for having government agencies target people – who have been charged with no crime – for reputation-destruction, infiltrate online political communities, and develop techniques for manipulating online discourse? But to allow those actions with no public knowledge or accountability is particularly unjustifiable.

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Keven Hofeling

[W. Niederhut]

4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Dr. Niederhut, it’s not discussion of the phenomenon that is the problem it’s your naming of names accusing people of things with no proof. Does it give you no qualm of conscience at all to consider what if you’re wrong in labeling and damaging someone innocent?

Suppose you label someone innocent of the accusation you make—where there was no process, no vetting through fellow peer moderators, no mechanism or guardrails against abuse or a (hypothetical) irresponsible moderator?

From my point of view, my issue if there was a hidden hand, cia or other paid relationship would be the lack of disclosure. I would still support reading and critically discussing any writings or publications, especially if, if hypothetically there were real cia connected actors, they would likely have access to better documents, sources, photos, evidence, and information. I mean here information, not disinformation.

But you are a moderator run amok making freewheeling accusations with no sign at all of a conscience about the possibility of smearing innocent persons.

If there is a real issue of undisclosed paid operatives, convene moderators and consider an intelligent policy to address that concern through process, perhaps formalizing an ethical obligation honor system request that sources of funding for JFK research be disclosed if so.

 

 

Greg,

    Did John Simkin post, on June 14, 2005, that John McAdams had a "CIA disinformation page?"

    Yes or no? 

    Should Mr. Simkin have been censured by you, Pat Speer, and the LN contingent on the forum for raising the issue of putative CIA psy ops on the internet?

     Where is this faux indignation about any honest discussion of CIA internet disinformation coming from?

      It's odd, somewhat like your insistence that Ruth Paine wasn't a CIA asset, and Pat Speer's insistence that JFK wasn't shot by a sniper in the Grassy Knoll area.

     

[Keven Hofeling]

16 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Dr. Niederhut, it’s not discussion of the phenomenon that is the problem it’s your naming of names accusing people of things with no proof. Does it give you no qualm of conscience at all to consider what if you’re wrong in labeling and damaging someone innocent?

Suppose you label someone innocent of the accusation you make—where there was no process, no vetting through fellow peer moderators, no mechanism or guardrails against abuse or a (hypothetical) irresponsible moderator?

From my point of view, my issue if there was a hidden hand, cia or other paid relationship would be the lack of disclosure. I would still support reading and critically discussing any writings or publications, especially if, if hypothetically there were real cia connected actors, they would likely have access to better documents, sources, photos, evidence, and information. I mean here information, not disinformation.

But you are a moderator run amok making freewheeling accusations with no sign at all of a conscience about the possibility of smearing innocent persons.

If there is a real issue of undisclosed paid operatives, convene moderators and consider an intelligent policy to address that concern through process, perhaps formalizing an ethical obligation honor system request that sources of funding for JFK research be disclosed if so.

Dr. Niederhut has not accused anybody of anything, Mr. Doudna. The disinformation operatives are functioning covertly, and the forum rules forbid members from accusing fellow members of being such covert operatives. Dr. Niederhut has not violated that rule by pointing out what should be so obvious to all researchers who also happen to be honest brokers.

But the following defamatory accusation that you have leveled against Dr. Niederhut -- that he is a "moderator run amok making freewheeling accusations with no sign at all of a conscience about the possibility of smearing innocent persons" -- is a violation of the rules of this forum, and I believe it is incumbent upon you to take self-corrective action in regard to this violation.

Some of us happen to care to see that American democracy and the constitutionally protected free speech rights of American citizens is not infringed, and we have a right to explore these issues within the bounds of the rules of this forum. Conversely, you do not have the right to obstruct such inquiry and discussion by violating the rules of this forum.

I suggest you take immediate self-corrective action, Mr. Doudna. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

37 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Pat litterally said, I quote : "It should be pointed out, moreover, that when I brought this to Simkin's attention, he, John Simkin, who suspected McAdams had CIA ties,..." etc (emphasis in bold is mine)

IMO that´s pretty clear

Study the archival thread referenced on my lead post, young man.  

John Simkin didn't merely suspect that John McAdams had CIA ties, as Pat Speer implies.

Simkin stated explicitly, on June 14, 2005, that John McAdams was publishing CIA disinformation on the internet.

Meanwhile, Pat Speer expressed doubts this weekend that John McAdams was working for the CIA.

Pat Speer also expressed doubts that Bugliosi published CIA disinformation about the JFKA!

Meanwhile, Greg Doudna has now accused me of "running amok" for posting some DiEugenio articles about Fred Litwin's work, and raising the issue of CIA disinformation on the internet.

 

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Study the archival thread referenced on my lead post, young man.  

John Simkin didn't merely suspect that John McAdams had CIA ties, as Pat Speer implies.

Simkin stated explicitly, on June 14, 2005, that John McAdams was publishing CIA disinformation on the internet.

Meanwhile, Pat Speer expressed doubts this weekend that John McAdams was working for the CIA.

Pat Speer also expressed doubts that Bugliosi published CIA disinformation about the JFKA!

Meanwhile, Greg Doudna has now accused me of "running amok" for posting some DiEugenio articles about Fred Litwin's work, and raising the issue of CIA disinformation on the internet.

 

Oh my...

An interested party--let's say the U.S. Government--might take a position on something--let's say that Jim Garrison is spreading communist propaganda--that they then leak to a few writers. If these articles then get cited by other writers--who simply dislike Jim Garrison because he looks weird or comes across as homophobic--it can be claimed these people are publishing or repeating government propaganda. But it doesn't mean they are getting paid by the government or are even witting of the source of the articles they found so convincing. 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

22 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh my...

An interested party--let's say the U.S. Government--might take a position on something--let's say that Jim Garrison is spreading communist propaganda--that they then leak to a few writers. If these articles then get cited by other writers--who simply dislike Jim Garrison because he looks weird or comes across as homophobic--it can be claimed these people are publishing or repeating government propaganda. But it doesn't mean they are getting paid by the government or are even witting of the source of the articles they found so convincing. 

 

The honest brokers on these forums aren't going to know what kind of renumeration the government trolls are receiving from the government because that information is classified, right?  And the government trolls on these forums who do know aren't going to divulge that information but are instead going to make deflective and dismissive comments of the variety that you have made, wouldn't you say?

Are we talking about young military recruits assigned to psychological warfare and counterespionage duties who are functioning remotely by computer, much like the killer drone operators do, or are FBI and/or CIA agents handling young miscreants and delinquents, much like criminal informants, to perform the operations? The honest brokers definitely aren't going to know that.

As for those in the MSM and academia who generate disinformation and propaganda for the government, they are not exactly going to be very motivated to disclose the sordid details either, now are they?

Although the honest brokers don't know the exact details of HOW it is being done, specifically who it is being done by, or how the services are being compensated, the evidence is overwhelming that it IS being done. 

Your perfunctory ruminations to the contrary are an insult to our intelligence.

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

4 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

The honest brokers on these forums aren't going to know what kind of renumeration the government trolls are receiving from the government because that information is classified, right?  And the government trolls on these forums who do know aren't going to divulge that information but are instead going to make deflective and dismissive comments of the variety that you have made, wouldn't you say?

Are we talking about young military recruits assigned to psychological warfare and counterespionage duties who are functioning remotely by computer, much like the killer drone operators do, or are FBI and/or CIA agents handling young miscreants and delinquents, much like criminal informants, to perform the operations? The honest brokers definitely aren't going to know that.

As for those in the MSM and academia who generate disinformation and propaganda for the government, they are not exactly going to be very motivated to disclose the sordid details either, now are they?

Although the honest brokers don't know the exact details of HOW it is being done, specifically who it is being done by, or how the services are being compensated, the evidence is overwhelming that it IS being done. 

Your perfunctory ruminations to the contrary are an insult to our intelligence.

 

Let's cite this as Example 1A of what happens when a moderator thinks that attacking the motivations of others is okie-dokie. 

[Keven Hofeling]

Just now, Pat Speer said:

Let's cite this as Example 1A of what happens when a moderator thinks that attacking the motivations of others is okie-dokie. 

You take offense that this subject is receiving some sunlight, do you?

Okay Mr. Okie-Dokie, precisely whose motivations did Dr. Niederhut question?