Thoughts regarding the doctored Pelosi video

Interesting thoughts and theory:

Ultimately it was a test. A test of how far one can go in doctoring video before platforms react and remove/downrank/censor the content. It was useful and served multiple purposes (as do most actions taken by these manipulators).

The eventual baseline method which will be used is even more subtle. Video Manipulation propaganda is headed toward customized recognition response which will be able to withstand platform scrutiny.

I’ll explain:

  1. The architects of propaganda gather info on who is hate-driven or can be persuaded to be hate driven. This data set already exists.
  2. Imagery and articles which trigger that segment’s hate response are then casually accompanied by a visual cue (ex: purple & green stripes).
  3. By including the subtle visual cue into targeted annoyances/imagery or alongside anger-inducing political articles via targeted advertising spots, the architects train the hate segment (and perhaps their periphery of friends) to react a certain way when that cue is seen.
  4. Visual cue is subtly doctored into the background of political target (ex: Pelosi) videos and the result is censorship-safe hate propaganda against a target. After all, how would you ever force Facebook to censor purple & green stripes?
  5. [The reality will be much more covert.]

What I think is pretty much certain is that there will be people and groups of people and organisations and probably governments going to great links to work out how to distribute more effective propaganda and fake news and attacks on people or parties or governments.

We need to be aware of this, and take care in what we accept as legitimate and what we need to be sceptical about.

Propaganda and attacks on oppoents and on populations have been happening for a long time. What has changed is technology, the technical means of creating and propagating propaganda.

Persistent propaganda following the confiscation of Waikato land by the Crown

Full thread:

Following the confiscation (raupatu) of 1.2 million acres of Waikato land by the Crown following their unjust war, proponents began persistent propaganda to overstate, and at times invent Waikato tribes own historical raupatu of land.

The cleansing of Waikato tribes, from their land and systematic destruction of civilian towns and agriculture was of course inexcusably an act of colonisation by any standards of the day.

An example of this is in the Waikato war with Ngati Toa. Crown agents promoted the lie that following the war, Waikato had confiscated all of Ngati Toa and Ngati Raarua land from sth Kawhia to Huikomako stream just south of Waikawau.

In reality, after the war Maniapoto chief Hari Maruru had sort out Ngati Toa / Rarua chiefs and put them back on their lands to maintain their mana whenua.

Taharoa was the only area where this didn’t occur so after 30 years of waiting, Ngati Mahuta – a Waikato tribe, moved there to officially occupy the land. Also, in the Land Court this is the only area claimed along that whole coastline as taken by raupatu.

Under the tikanga of raupatu, land was rarely ever permanently confiscated. In this instance the majority of the tribes with Te Rauparaha, moved south. Those that stayed or eventually came back were able to reestablish their mana whenua. And we still hold it today.

Today Ngati Raarua, Ngati Toa and Maniapoto hapu all hold interests in our coastline from Harihari South to Huikomako. These interests are shared due to intermarriage but they are derived from Raarua and Ngati Toa.

When the Crown confiscated land though, it was total and often mass confiscation.

It was used purely as a way to mass acquire land and resources. Therefore just armed robbery and murder, obviously completely a breach of the treaty. All that land needs to be bought back by the Crown and given back.

But this I believe is the reason for overstating and at times inventing raupatu. False equivalence to write the history books the way they wanted it.


Examining the Russian media war

A very interesting article by Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times that claims Russian influence in what has become known as fake news, used to promote discord and protest and to interfere in elections in countries around the world.

Examples are given of interference in Germany over immigration, in the UK over Brexit, and in the US election.

RT, Sputnik and Russia’s New Theory of War

How the Kremlin built one of the most powerful information weapons of the 21st century — and why it may be impossible to stop.

…Steltner found the phone calls he received that morning confounding. They came from police officers from towns far outside Berlin, who reported that protests were erupting, seemingly out of nowhere, on their streets. “They are demonstrating — ‘Save our children,’ ‘No attacks from immigrants on our children’ and some things like that,” Steltner told me when I met him in Berlin recently.

The police were calling Steltner because this was ostensibly his office’s fault. The protesters were angry over the Berlin prosecutor’s supposed refusal to indict three Arab migrants who, they said, raped a 13-year-old girl from Berlin’s tight-knit Russian-German community.

Steltner, who would certainly have been informed if such a case had come up for prosecution, had heard nothing of it. He called the Berlin Police Department, which informed him that a 13-year-old Russian-German girl had indeed gone missing a week before. When she resurfaced a day later, she told her parents that three “Southern-looking men” — by which she meant Arab migrants — had yanked her off the street and taken her to a rundown apartment, where they beat and raped her.

But when the police interviewed the girl, whose name was Lisa, she changed her story. She had left home, it turned out, because she had gotten in trouble at school. Afraid of how her parents would react, she went to stay with a 19-year-old male friend. The kidnapping and gang rape, she admitted, never happened.

The allegations were false, but Russian news agencies kept publishing them, promoting protests and discord over immigration in Germany.

Officials in Germany and at NATO headquarters in Brussels view the Lisa case, as it is now known, as an early strike in a new information war Russia is waging against the West. In the months that followed, politicians perceived by the Russian government as hostile to its interests would find themselves caught up in media storms that, in their broad contours, resembled the one that gathered around Merkel.

They often involved conspiracy theories and outright falsehoods — sometimes with a tenuous connection to fact, as in the Lisa case, sometimes with no connection at all — amplified until they broke through into domestic politics. In other cases, they simply helped promote nationalist, far-left or far-right views that put pressure on the political center.

What the efforts had in common was their agents: a loose network of Russian-government-run or -financed media outlets and apparently coordinated social-media accounts.

And this is effective. This is evident in New Zealand where ordinary people, especially those with conspiracy tendencies or with strong views about things like immigration or politics, pick up on and amplify the messages – which is of course one of the aims.

After RT and Sputnik gave platforms to politicians behind the British vote to leave the European Union, like Nigel Farage, a committee of the British Parliament released a report warning that foreign governments may have tried to interfere with the referendum.

Russia and China, the report argued, had an “understanding of mass psychology and of how to exploit individuals” and practiced a kind of cyberwarfare “reaching beyond the digital to influence public opinion.”

I wouldn’t rule out other countries either, like North Korea, from the Middle East – and the US, who are also one of the main targets.

But all of this paled in comparison with the role that Russian information networks are suspected to have played in the American presidential election of 2016.

In early January, two weeks before Donald J. Trump took office, American intelligence officials released a declassified version of a report — prepared jointly by the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency — titled “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections.” It detailed what an Obama-era Pentagon intelligence official, Michael Vickers, described in an interview in June with NBC News as “the political equivalent of 9/11.”

“Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election,” the authors wrote. “Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency.” According to the report, “Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”

The intelligence assessment detailed some cloak-and-dagger activities, like the murky web of Russian (if not directly government-affiliated or -financed) hackers who infiltrated voting systems and stole gigabytes’ worth of email and other documents from the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

But most of the assessment concerned machinations that were plainly visible to anyone with a cable subscription or an internet connection: the coordinated activities of the TV and online-media properties and social-media accounts that made up, in the report’s words, “Russia’s state-run propaganda machine.”

The assessment devoted nearly half its pages to a single cable network: RT. The Kremlin started RT — shortened from the original Russia Today — a dozen years ago to improve Russia’s image abroad.

But it is not simple to isolate and combat.

Plenty of RT’s programming, to outward appearances, is not qualitatively different from conventional opinion-infused cable news.

Its fans point to its coverage of political perspectives that aren’t prominent on mainstream networks — voices from the Occupy movement, the libertarian right and third parties like the Green Party. The network has been nominated for four International Emmy Awards and one Daytime Emmy.

This makes RT and Sputnik harder for the West to combat than shadowy hackers.

 RT might not have amassed an audience that remotely rivals CNN’s in conventional terms, but in the new, “democratized” media landscape, it doesn’t need to.

Over the past several years, the network has come to form the hub of a new kind of state media operation: one that travels through the same diffuse online channels, chasing the same viral hits and memes, as the rest of the Twitter-and-Facebook-age media.

In the process, Russia has built the most effective propaganda operation of the 21st century so far, one that thrives in the feverish political climates that have descended on many Western publics.

It is a long article but worth reading if you have any interest in international propaganda and information wars.

As stated it is not just the use of news organisations, it is the use of social media as well. Facebook is gradually admitting how they were used during the US election campaign.

Reuters: Facebook says some Russian ads during U.S. election promoted live events

Some of the ads bought by Russians on Facebook last year promoted events during the U.S. presidential campaign, Facebook Inc said on Tuesday, indicating that alleged meddling ahead of the 2016 election went beyond social media.

Facebook said in a statement that its takedown of what the company last week called Russian-affiliated pages included shutting down “several promoted events.”

Facebook declined to provide details of the promoted events.

Facebook, the world’s largest social network, said last week that an operation likely based in Russia had placed thousands of U.S. ads with polarizing views on topics such as immigration, race and gay rights on the site during a two-year period through May 2017.

The Daily Beast, the news website that first reported on the promoted events posted on Facebook, said one advertisement promoted an anti-immigrant rally in Idaho in August 2016.

The rally was hosted by a Facebook group called “Secured Borders,” which was a Russian front and is now suspended, according to the Daily Beast.

In social media they commonly target people who want to believe certain things and  spread issues that have dubious merit.

Goff’s betrayal, Mallard’s propaganda

Labour messages don’t line up.

Phil Goff, Labour Party Leader

I want Labour to connect with people, to engage with people and communities throughout the country to help us develop policies that reflect the needs and aspirations of all New Zealanders.

Trevor Mallard, Labour MP Hutt South

The key point for us is not to be dragged down into the detail on the CGT. The pub­lic don’t care and we get boring.

Goff claims connection and communication, Mallard leads a PR campaign that seems aimed at keeping people in the dark. We could just as easily read Mallard as saying “we don’t care about informing the public of the detail”.

  • The detail was not made available to the public. I looked for detail and it wasn’t available on the Labour website.
  • Labour would not “engage” with me, I posted a comment on their website and it was ignored (or censored).
  • I have raised points about CGT policy on blogs and have been actively attacked and discussion has been discouraged.

Who runs Labour? Is this why Goff can appear so uncomfortable when speaking – his honesty and wish to connect is being overridden by the party?

CGT deserves a decent debate.

It appears that Labour is cynically  using CGT as a tool to try and get elected and don’t want the merits of CGT debated. They want to control the messsage, and shout down any attempts at discussion.

Labour still don’t understand why the public have become so pissed off with politicians.

Goff says what he thinks the public want to hear (maybe he believes it).

Mallard keeps playing the old game of propaganda and manipulation and hiding details from the public.

I want honesty and real engagement with the public on policies. I think we deserve better – if Goff really is a leader he should live up to his word. Otherwise his face will keep betraying him.