Sharing is Caring!

by Max Insider

Correct the Record is a Hillary-campaign super-pac that is dedicated to “fighting the lies” on the Internet. What it is, is a battalion of paid trolls whose job it is to disrupt, demoralize, and defame any Trump supporters and message boards. They communicate using a secure messaging software called “slack” pictured above.

We were able to get some monitoring software onto a junior analyst’s laptop to take a look inside the slack-channel where they were doing work. What we found was startling. In the fall-out from last night’s debate, they are beginning a new campaign of targeted harassment (or worse) against the “ring leaders” of the decentralized online Trump movement.

Without a traditional campaign infrastructure to target, it appears they have been reduced to going after the “most influential voices” in the online debate. What exactly this means, we’re not sure (the comment at the end of the conversation wasn’t good though). Below are the screen shots and the full transcript of today’s conversation.

Begin Transcript

ekim [5:52 AM]

ekim [5:52 AM]

set the channel purpose: clean up this mes

brock [5:52 AM]

joined post-debate from an invitation by @ekim

brock [5:53 AM]

go round up the others. i need some coffee.

ekim [5:53 AM]

will do

efink [5:54 AM]


brock [5:54 AM]

good morning to u to fink.

efink [5:55 AM]

the only good thing about it was that whoever that was, she looked pretty good. how tf did they do that?

brock [5:56 AM]

i can’t talk. very hush hush. still, we’ve lost every online poll and we need to get tough here. get this under control.


still, i hope we put the sick thing to bed.


i hope.

efink [5:57 AM]

me 2. do i have time for coffee?

brock [5:57 AM]

we’re all gonna need a lot of coffee.

ekim [5:58 AM]

shaw is on his way sir.


i don’t see what’s so bad. She looked really healthy! I thought she did GREAT!

efink [5:59 AM]

she was scoring 3 on AMTS a couple of weeks ago and 22 on mmse. Yeah, whoever that was was normal.


but the telemetry sucks.  look at all the snap onlines: we’re losing 100%


romney v obama numbers

ekim [6:01 AM]

but those don’t mean anything

efink [6:01 AM]

it means they’re enthusiastic. organized. if they can swarm a poll whats to stop them swarming a voting booth?


it also creates a counter-nar. the free press will sniff it. we have to stop the bleeding.

ekim [6:01 AM]


efink [6:02 AM]

don’t worry. we have something. GET SHAW OUT OF BED.


i’m going for coffee.

cshaw [6:05 AM]



hi Liz.


I see we’re not happy :disappointed:

brock [6:06 AM]

Not at all.

cshaw [6:06 AM]

I read the round-up. It looked good?

See also  Donald Trump Sued for Fraud by NY Attorney General — With Criminal Referral to IRS

brock [6:07 AM]

the round up my burning ass. I’m talking about the real world. Trump made her look like a girl. Today we hit back. We hit back hard.



efink [6:07 AM]

one sec.


okay. guys, this is 18-2381 stuff. Got it?

cshaw [6:10 AM]


ekim [6:10 AM]

yes sir.

efink [6:11 AM]

alright. we need to move beyond the disruption scripts and down-voting. we need to start hurting people and that’s what this is about. This is about winning because we’ll never get a chance at this again. everything is justified. David?

brock [6:11 AM]



fuck–okay. so the Trump team is an emergent order. thirty million little chan and reddit assholes that bump around and then congeal to vote in a poll or push a meme or make a hashtag trend or whatever. This is new. It isn’t like fighting a centrally organized campaign.


It’s more like fighting a disease.


So what we need to do is break the pattern. The usual means isn’t working. Trump’s too charismatic. Morale is too high. This is an army of chaos folks.


so we have full clearance. Word of God.


Fink–let’s do this. I have a plane to catch.

efink [6:16 AM]

uploaded and commented on an image: foxacid.jpg

1 Comment


ekim [6:16 AM]


cshaw [6:16 AM]

i like it! wtf is it??

efink [6:17 AM]

This is manna from heaven, kids.


We have the use of an NSA intrusion package. We are going to find the thought leaders. the meme-generators. the shit-posters. I need a target analysis for reddit, twitter, and the chans by tomorrow 5 PM.


You will monitor, identify, and using the FA software set we have, identify/dox.

cshaw [6:18 AM]

that will dox them??

efink [6:20 AM]

It will man-on-the-side for the anon boards and intercept traffic. We can use that for IP addresses and loading tracking software and magic lantern onto their devices. Once we have them compromised


David? How many do we need?

brock [6:21 AM]

I want 150 from 4chan, whatever you can get from 8. I want 1000 top reddit drivers exposed and I want content analysis for their posts. I want the people who are really driving their narrative.


I need all that in a packet by tomorrow afternoon with lexical analysis, proof of compromise. I want clips of memes. I want to up-vote patterns. All this has to be inside the US too. We can’t use externals.

cshaw [6:23 AM]

It won’t work outside the US?

efink [6:23 AM]

It works fine outside the us you idiot. That’s NSA stuff.

brock [6:24 AM]

WE don’t work outside the US. Do you think this is fucking bean-bag?


We are going to disrupt them before this shit goes any further.

See also  ‘Wizard of Oz’ Remake Goes Woke, Plans to Include LGBTQ Representation.


if they don’t have leaders, we’re going to get their thought leaders.

cshaw [6:24 AM]

like pajama boy!

brock [6:25 AM]


cshaw [6:25 AM]


efink [6:26 AM]

just get us the target profiles. Hit the numbers. Give us a matrix for each of them. Okay? PII, influence grid, recent activity, Q-rate. Like that.


You know what to do.

cshaw [6:26 AM]

Yes sir.

ekim [6:26 AM]

What are we going to do with that?

brock [6:27 AM]

dof u really want tio fucking know, kim?

ekim [6:27 AM]

i’m good.

brock [6:28 AM]

u better be. I am going to get a plane. You will be up ALL NIGHT. Keep the lab LOCKED. Fink bring in pizza or whatever to keep the kids going.


I am out.

cshaw [6:28 AM]

does it have to be We the Pizza?

efink [6:29 AM]

Brock LIKES WtP. What do you want?

ekim [6:29 AM]

Sushi. Sushi would be nice.

efink [6:30 AM]

what do you think this is, the Trump campaign. We’re getting pizza from We.


Get those files together.

ekim [6:30 AM]

I’m on it. Do you know what brock is going to do with them? I do kind of want to know, sir.

efink [6:31 AM]

google Seth Rich and shut up about it.

cshaw [6:31 AM]



well, they are deplorable. idk. I think we should have done this a long time ago.

efink [6:32 AM]

get working kids. I’ll check back in a couple. Have something for Brock before he hits the ground. k?

ekim [6:33 AM]

I’m sick of We the Pizza.

cshaw [6:33 AM]




ekim [6:33 AM]


Rich Seth is the recently deceased (murdered) whistle-blower who gave information to Wikileaks. FOXACID is NSA software designed to compromise enemy systems. We think ‘word of god’ and ‘heaven’ are code for Obama and the White House.

If you know anyone who might be a target of this initiative, please let them know to be careful.


  1. You are all a pathetic bunch of gullible pu**ies to believe this BS. Trump didn’t make anyone “look like a girl.” He was absolutely eviscerated, and you know it. You’re just in a supreme state of denial. Go back to mommy.

    • This is Hillary’s inside people saying Trump made her “look like a girl”. For you to disagree with her own people makes you look like a fool. They know Trump is tearing her candidacy down, even if you fail to recognize it.

    • Trump was hardly “absolutely eviscerated”.
      Presidential debates are not won/lost by who can quote the most numbers, recite policy, pronounce the name of some leader in Turkmenistan, etc. They are won/lost by who has the most charisma and on-camera personality, the person people might most want to have a beer with. If you don’t believe me look at the Kennedy/Nixon debate or the Reagan/Mondale debate. Neither Kennedy or Reagan were seasoned politicians but they won the presidency.
      Trump’s passion and genuineness is believable. Hillary Clinton not so much. Clinton was rehearsed, forced and boring. With her painted on smile and condescension for normal Americans dripping out of every poor she just comes across as the smug, entitled global elitist she is.
      Was Trump as ‘polished’ in his delivery as HRC? No, but that’s exactly what makes him so popular. And apparently, bottom line, Trump swung more undecideds his way than HRC did hers. So in that respect, Trump won.

      • If a debate is needed to help Americans make up their minds, they don’t have a mind to make up. It’s quite obvious what the choice is right now- WW3 or diplomacy?

    • David Counter are you the counter who tallies all the illegal Hillary votes? If Hillary had really ANYTHING positive that she could put before the public that could be attributed to her she wouldn’t need all this disruptive campaign strategy. Trump is attacked by the establishment to provide a smokescreen for Clinton’s major crimes against humanity and the American people! If Hillary “wins” this election YOU may be the one who will have to look over his shoulder on a dark street on a dark night! You threaten Trump supporters- it makes YOU fair game!

  2. Americans ! ! !
    Please listen to one of your elders:
    I am an old man near 70, and in my 50 + years of observing politics I have never seen a politician hand an adversary such a powerful weapon as Hillary Clinton did when she damned 20% of the American people as “irredeemable” “deplorables”.
    In that one remark she summarized the leftist contempt for Americans who stubbornly refuse to submit to leftist shibboleths, and she poured gasoline on the anger of half our population who are sick of being treated as enemies in their own country.
    And “Irredeemable” is even worse than deplorable, because as leftists do not as a rule believe in either salvation, or heaven, or hell, just what do they think they are justified in doing to someone whom they believe is “irredeemable?”
    It is for God to decide such things, not human beings.
    Hillary Clinton is stone cold evil.
    Her remark reeks of death camps,
    and I have never seen her like before in American politics.
    Please do not vote for her ! ! !

    • You are the same age as me and I have been a fan of politics for lots of years. This woman running for President is the WORST candidate EVER seen in the free world. She makes Angela look like a sleezy two bit whore in comparison. She is trying to hint to us what she has in store for us but the lefturds are not listening to her….they are just listening to all the free hand outs that Sanders wanted to give to them that she has absconded with and made her own “ideas”. Free college….don’t think so…..more welfare for poor families……don’t think so. Tax the rich…..in her dreams. She wants to totally gut the coal industry in 3 states.
      She does not care about us. This is the first candidate in American history to be so blatant as to her lies saying they were “mistakes” that could and HAVE cost people their lives!!! 100 years ago she would have been tarred and coated with feathers and run out of town. Now she just lies and keeps calling other people tempermental and unfit while basking in the glow of her meanspirited jabs.
      Two hundred years from now Americans will be scratching their heads in amazement that America fell for her garbage for a second. $100BILLION dollars for her pretend foundation money laundering machine is beyond greedy. All the money she and billy stole from Haiti is downright deplorable and sadistic. All the folks that mysteriously died is sadistic……but she does not care. Anything to squelch the opposition is fair game for her.
      I predict if somehow she gets in we will all be herded into FEMA camps for either reeducation or elimination and the entire America given over to the Muslim world and where she is the absolute dictator and Obozo is Head of the UN where he is declared dictator of the world. The communists are lose in this country and must be stopped…..while we can stop them.

      • Hitler was a leftist socialist and a fascist. Why do liberals think fascism is right wing when it is always socialist governments and there liberal policies which end up taking guns, controlling health care and medicine, taking away free speech, higher taxes (wealth redistribution) controlling production and industry and many more. Just look at the “liberal” swing toward war and conflict and global empire! It used to be considered right wing but clearly the socialist liberals have fully embraced and clearly expanded these policies. So I hope you can understand and realize the left are the true fascists. They like to label others what they themselves truly are.

  3. Anyone besides me wondering why/how quickly your comments on other websites are shat upon by leftist-progressive trolls?
    You didn’t know Hillary has hired a virtual army to counter online criticism and commentary?
    Get used to it. With President Obeyme handing our internet control over to the UN’s gang of misfits, muslim terrorists, progressives, communists and other tyrants, we (Americans, Humans) will soon have everything we write or email on the web scrutinized, sanitized, censored or otherwise controlled.
    Perhaps, and this isn’t very far off the mark, with our very own US Supreme court’s justices (Ginsberg, specifically) referring frequently, even deferring, to “international law” (i.e. – UN, with its HQ in New York City), soon you may be prosecuted in international courts for violations of their (not Americans’, Constitutional, laws), with no recourse or protection as a sovereign citizen of the US. You laugh. It’s happening.
    This is the nature of “progressives” (those who self-describe as such including President Obeyme, Hilliary Clinton, John McCain and many others in our government), beholden only to their own globalist agenda (see: “Fabian Socialist” – they have their own website, they make no bones about eventually controlling the entire world), they have plans for us, and the end justifies the means.
    And you thought Suckerburg’s FaceBook censorship was bad.

    • Brock and mediamutters has been running their internet assignments since 2011. Talking points and assignments to articles and pages are nothing new. Hunting and stalking top posters not new. Down votes/up votes bots nothing new.
      The scanning of top posters and shutting down their accounts is new.

      • “Riching” them is new.
        ekim [6:30 AM]
        I’m on it. Do you know what brock is going to do with them? I do kind of want to know, sir.
        efink [6:31 AM]
        google Seth Rich and shut up about it.

    • Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist – C.1997
      8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage.
      SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

  4. Wait a minute… is this for real?
    And if so what what were the early references to ‘she’ and AMTS and MMSA?
    AMTS – Abbreviated Mental Test Score (often used to test for dementia)
    MMSE – Mini–Mental State Examination
    Surely if she were in that state little wanna-be hacker trolls wouldn’t know about it.
    Confused too.

  5. On the Dailymail, they have script bots that are down voting (or red arrowing), any comment that is against Hillary. Yesterday I saw comments that were posted 23 minutes earlier and had 8,000+ red arrows.

  6. I scrolled through this, and checked out some names. There is an Elizabeth Kim that is listed on a FEC Form 3x, the April Quarterly. Report of Reciepts and Disbursments for Correct the Record. Her name is on page 12 and 29 of the PDF. There is also an Elliott Fink on page 28 of the PDF. These 2 names can be found on the chat above I also saw a disbursement to We the Pizza on page 53 of this filing

  7. WTF??! We need to follow these cancerous rats down into their dark, stinky little holes and eradicate them. CHALLENGE TO ALL YOU BRILLIANT HACKERS OUT THERE (you know who you are): GET TO WORK! SHOW YOUR STUFF!

  8. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
    Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
    1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
    2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.
    3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.
    4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
    5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
    6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
    7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
    8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
    9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
    10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
    11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
    12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
    13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
    14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
    15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
    16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
    17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
    18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’
    19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
    20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
    21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
    22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
    23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
    24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
    25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
    Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
    Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
    1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
    2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
    3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
    4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
    5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
    6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
    7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ‘freudian’, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
    8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor.

  9. This is good news. As long as they’re talking about you, thinking about you, and staying up late at night with anxiety, thats whats important.
    True or not, it doesn’t matter. Like Trump said in his book, if you formulate every outcome to come out on top, it doesn’t matter how you get there.
    The more trolls the better, each is an opportunity to inform those who have been duped and played on with some fact and more fiction. Thats what they really fear. Free speech and open discussion. Most totalitarian or totalist group thinking opposes free speech.
    “Freedom of speech?! We are not going to commit suicide.” – Vladimir Lenin

  10. Fear is what they feel. They know trump is smashing hilary and that their media lap dogs are failing in making people believe in a Hilary victory. So now they resort to going after the ‘ thought leaders’, the little people who others see. The big fish can put up with intimidation, the little fish can’t. It’s not the physical violence that people will fear, it’s the manipulating of everything that they have or do or have access to on line…ie social media, bank, medical, insurance ect

  11. Has anyone alerted the Reddit folks who might be implicated? I looked on Reddit but couldn’t find anything about this, and I’m not a member of any of the potentially targeted groups.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.