So I’ve finally started making gifs from some of the character animation I did for Psyop’s Dishonored: Tales from Dunwall animations! I wanted to isolate a few of my favorite sequences from the rest of the backgrounds/effects to show what they look like on their own. 

This is a little zoomed-in segment of one of my favorites. It’s from the Episode 3 dream sequence. Poor lil Piero gettin’ tumbled around. So much fun!!


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.

(Source: The Future Journalism Project)

Watch on

CNN propaganda in #Ferguson exposed


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?

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

Are you being gamed?

Via Glenn Greenwald / The Intercept:

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…

…Among the core self-identified purposes of [the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group] 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…

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.”

Read through for source documents demonstrating how this done.

poorraisins replied to your post “I’ve noticed a dedicated presence of someone on /pol/ who types exactly like Lemwon. Same kinda angle of attack, same kinda rhetoric, same kind of argumentation.”

do the agencies really have anything to gain by all this or do they enjoy trolling as much as the next guy

Oh yes, they really do. It’s been suspected for years now that the U.S. government runs counter-intelligence operations online against regular citizens, but only recently has concrete evidence started to surface. For example, remember that internet virus which 'framed users' for child porn? How could people forget Operation Flicker so easily? The fucking Department of Homeland Security (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) openly states:

“Child pornography files may have to be shared from CPS servers in order to execute these new methods [of catching pedophiles]”

"The purpose of these [trojan] programs is to infect anyone whom is added to our suspected child-pornographer lists then use them to download child pornography then distribute them with other users onP2P file sharing networks to be able to flag the IP Address then sent it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).”

You might be wondering to yourself, “where do they obtain all of that child porn?” It’s simple: they hang on to the pornography they acquire when they make arrests. They use it for baiting purposes! They acknowledge outright that if anyone got word of what they were doing, “civil liberties organizations” would be upset. Straight from the leaked Operation Flicker documents:

Risks and Issues:

The use of these methods may create constitutional and legal issues which may drive radical civil liberties organizations to attempt to fight these new methods upon discovery of them, which is the reason why this document remains classified,however the benefits of fighting sex tourism and child exploitation make these new methods acceptable in the modern age of telecommunications. The few risks in addition to the above are identified below:

  • If ICE and FBI are not coordinated in their attempts using these new methods to deter and catch potential child pornographers, there may be data consistency issues between the agencies and data leaks from potential whistleblowers.
  • Child pornography files may have to be shared from CPS servers in order to execute these new methods which will help criminal investigators determine if whom they are investigating could engage in distribution and transmission of child pornography images and moving images.

The U.S. government has the capacity and will to frame anyone for anything. Another project has also come to light recently;

launched in 2008 – the year of the global banking crisis – the Department of Defense ‘Minerva Research Initiative’ partners with universities “to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US.”

Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model “of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions.”

The implications for the Minerva Research Initiative go way beyond research — it’s obvious the United States has been applying every scrap of data it collects. You see, on June 3rd, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the revival of the ‘domestic terror task force.’ The plans are in full swing to begin broad, far-reaching purges of 21st ‘undesirables’ and high on that list are independent names in social media, activism, and politics.

Last year, the DoD’s Minerva Initiative funded a project to determine 'Who Does Not Become a Terrorist, and Why?' which, however, conflates peaceful activists with “supporters of political violence” who are different from terrorists only in that they do not embark on “armed militancy” themselves. The project explicitly sets out to study non-violent activists:

"In every context we find many individuals who share the demographic, family, cultural, and/or socioeconomic background of those who decided to engage in terrorism, and yet refrained themselves from taking up armed militancy, even though they were sympathetic to the end goals of armed groups. The field of terrorism studies has not, until recently, attempted to look at this control group. This project is not about terrorists, but about supporters of political violence.”

Glenn Greenwald confirmed that many of their targets are “self-radicalized” web users, outing the United States’ active attempts to subvert online discourse and grassroots campaigns.

The US National Security Agency (NSA), for example, has been tracking the online activities of people because they were believed to express “radical” points of view, according to a memo from the Snowden files. The document, dated October 2012, discusses six Muslims in particular, described as mere “exemplars.”

Meanwhile, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the UK equivalent of the NSA, has been attacking hacker activist group Anonymous with viruses, “honeytraps” and information operations aimed at damaging the reputation of the hacktivists, according to a PowerPoint presentation by the agency officials cited by Greenwald.

Such discrediting tactics include changing photos on social network websites, writing blogs under the names of invented victims and luring Anonymous members to compromising sites. Deleting online presence of the target and using denial of service attacks are also among the GCHQ’s tactics.

These actions aren’t just limited to the digital world. Acts of subversion are quite commonplace — haven’t you ever wondered how many times a law enforcement official has posed as an anarchist just to cause trouble and make them look bad in the media? Because it happens way more often than you think.

The U.S. created an entire platform in Cuba and other countries just to fuck with public political discourse and stir civil unrest. The ATF actually convinced a handful of individuals afflicted with mental illness to commit crimes; the Feds will go online and try to stir controversy where others are trying to mend. They will try to induce people into saying, supporting, or committing terrible things.

If you still aren’t convinced that Federal government wouldn’t “have anything to gain” by infiltration and deception, here are a few more headlines which indicate a clear prerogative:

Keep in mind, I didn’t even bother to talk about the time the FBI and DHS organized attempts to infiltrate Occupy Wall Street protests, planned to assassinate organic figureheads, and induced a couple of losers to think they were going to blow up a bridge.

It is absolutely true that the “hero” rhetoric that is attached to all things related to the U.S. military is used to shut down real debate about the merits of what exactly it is that all those heroes are doing out there. If all soldiers are heroes, then all soldiers are righteous. If all soldiers are righteous, then the soldiers’ cause is righteous. The soldiers’ cause is war. Therefore the war is righteous. This is one of the oldest tropes in the “Manipulating the Free Press During Wartime” handbook. You need only look back at the profusion of American flag graphics and distinct lack of pointed skepticism that defined the U.S. media in the run up to the Iraq War to know how well this tactic works. It is easy for a TV network and its pundits to be patriotic. Theirs is a cheap patriotism. It is a patriotism of platitudes and comfortable symbols and cartoonish enemy villains to be opposed. Dissenters are just easy weenies to be picked on in the media schoolyard.

As social media play increasingly large roles in fomenting unrest in countries like Egypt and Iran, the military wants systems to be able to detect and track the spread of ideas both quickly and on a broad scale. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is soliciting innovative proposals to help build what would be, at its most basic level, an Internet meme tracker.

In its 37-page solicitation, Darpa described how a would-be high-technology lynching was foiled: “Rumors about the location of a certain individual began to spread in social media space and calls for storming the rumored location reached a fever pitch. By chance, responsible authorities were monitoring the social media, detected the crisis building, sent out effective messaging to dispel the rumors and averted a physical attack on the rumored location.”

A successful program would influence attitudes through methods including automatically generating content, formerly known as spam, and “inducing identities,” which might be whipping up fake combatants.

I don’t want to read the RFP for this. I want to read the RFP that describes the offensive version.

update: here are some of the interesting details as dug up by the KYM list:

 a new science of social networks built on an emerging technology base. In particular, SMISC The general goal of the Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program is to develop will develop automated and semiautomated operator support tools and techniques for the systematic and methodical use of social media at data scale and in a timely fashion to accomplish four specific program goals: 1. Detect, classify, measure and track the (a) formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes), and (b) purposeful or deceptive messaging and misinformation. 2. Recognize persuasion campaign structures and influence operations across social media sites and communities. 3. Identify participants and intent, and measure effects of persuasion campaigns. 4. Counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations.


Technology areas particularly relevant to SMISC are shown here grouped to correspond to the

four basic goals of the program as described above:

1. Linguistic cues, patterns of information flow, topic trend analysis, narrative structure

analysis, sentiment detection and opinion mining;

2. Meme tracking across communities, graph analytics/probabilistic reasoning, pattern

detection, cultural narratives;

3. Inducing identities, modeling emergent communities, trust analytics, network dynamics


4. Automated content generation, bots in social media, crowd sourcing

h/t kthread

thedoomreport replied to your post:Sure, conspiracies happen. Watergate was a conspiracy. I mean more along the lines of …

Are we still scoffing at FEMA camps? Does this person need their hand held all the way to Camp Lejuene?


Leaked Document: Military Internment Camps in U.S

This video briefly outlines the modern policy regarding internment camps within the United States, run by the Federal government through FEMA and the Military. The U.S. Military assents to the existence of such camps on the goarmy website, advertising for the position of an “INTERNMENT/RESETTLEMENT SPECIALIST (31E)”



Internment/resettlement specialists are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. 


  • Supervision of confinement and detention operations
  • External security to facilities
  • Counseling/guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program
  • Records of prisoners/internees and their programs


Those who want to serve must first take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a series of tests that helps you better understand your strengths and identify which Army jobs are best for you.


Job training for an internment/resettlement specialist requires 10 weeks of Basic Combat Training and eight weeks of Advanced Individual Training with on-the-job instruction. Part of this time is spent in the classroom and in the field.

Some of the skills you’ll learn are:

  • Military laws and jurisdictions
  • Self-defense and use of firearms
  • Interpersonal communications skills
  • Search/restraint and custody/control procedures


  • Interest in law enforcement
  • Physically and mentally fit
  • Ability to make quick decisions
  • Remain calm under heavy duress


Skilled Technical (ST) : 95

Learn more about the ASVAB and see what jobs you could qualify for.


Total compensation includes housing, medical, food, special pay, and vacation time. Learn more about total compensation.


In the Army, qualified students can earn full-tuition, merit-based scholarships, allowances for books and fees, plus an annual stipend for living expenses. Learn more about education benefits.


The skills you learn will help prepare you for a career with federal, state and local law enforcement.

This is what awaits us in a glorious Clintonian future.

The process within our brains that creates habits is a three-step loop. First, there is a cue, a trigger that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and which habit to use. Then there is the routine, which can be physical or mental or emotional. Finally, there is a reward, which helps your brain figure out if this particular loop is worth remembering for the future. Over time, this loop — cue, routine, reward; cue, routine, reward — becomes more and more automatic. The cue and reward become neurologically intertwined until a sense of craving emerges. What’s unique about cues and rewards, however, is how subtle they can be. Neurological studies like the ones in Graybiel’s lab have revealed that some cues span just milliseconds. And rewards can range from the obvious (like the sugar rush that a morning doughnut habit provides) to the infinitesimal (like the barely noticeable — but measurable — sense of relief the brain experiences after successfully navigating the driveway). Most cues and rewards, in fact, happen so quickly and are so slight that we are hardly aware of them at all. But our neural systems notice and use them to build automatic behaviors.

Habits aren’t destiny — they can be ignored, changed or replaced. But it’s also true that once the loop is established and a habit emerges, your brain stops fully participating in decision-making. So unless you deliberately fight a habit — unless you find new cues and rewards — the old pattern will unfold automatically.