Before reading this article, you should make sure you have a good grasp on the content provided in the first 3 articles of this series. Otherwise, this article will not provide you with the insight you seek.
You can read the first three here:
- The Covert Opinion-Molding Operations Part 1: Shills
- The Opinion-Molding Operations Part 2: Distortioners
- The Opinion-Molding Operations Part 3: Wumao Examples
As a quick recap from Part 2, remember when referencing online content we focus very heavily on two agents:
- Shills (Individuals or groups that purposely distort or derail conversations or information to the benefit of one side. They usually appear in a large quantity to make it seem as though public opinion heavily favors one position or to distract from the actual issue.)
- Distortioners (Individuals or groups that put up false flag ideas acting as though they are on the opposing side’s team. These false flags are usually very damaging, cunningly-devised, and easy to debunk.)
These two sets are paid very handsomely for what they do. They operate in every country around the world, as shown in Part 3.
So, let us point out some obvious examples of them, so you can begin to spot them yourselves. You have the knowledge of what they are and how they operate, now let’s look at some very specific examples of them in action.
The Guardian is a pretty far-left newspaper from London. We will use one of their online articles as an example.
I have archived a comment section from one of their articles here.
The article itself is about some lady drawing pictures about blacks in ancient Rome. She drew pictures showing high-ranking Roman soldiers being black. In defense of this argument, she states the following:
So, for example, the emperor Septimius Severus, who came from Libya, and was married to the Syrian Julia Domna, ran the empire from York, England, for a period (where, incidentally, a temple to the Egyptian deity Serapis was founded). Was he black? Pass. Maybe. There was an African governor of Britain, too, in the figure of Clodius Albinus, who came from Tunisia. Again, it can’t be known for sure whether he was black or not, but it is not impossible.
So there are a possible few examples of maybe two or three people being black in Rome, but she doesn’t know for sure. But supposedly, it’s possible.
Ignoring the obvious errors of this in accordance with Rome’s strict structure, origin from Italy, and dominance in Greece and the Judean-type regions, it’s still a funny article to read. A few blacks likely lived and resided around Rome, but to normalize them as high-ranking soldiers in Rome is suitable only for fantasy.
And quite frankly, I could not care less about it. Whether there were blacks in Rome or Great Britain holds no real relevance to me, at all. I’m an American. Which makes this article particularly useful in reading through for distortioners and shills, because I have no vested emotional interest in it.
Pay little attention to the article itself. Focus on the comments.
Go through the article’s comments. Before proceeding forward, see if you can spot any obvious shills or distortioners.
Now, let’s go through and tag some together:
A commenter said the following:
No one was denying that there were SOME non-white people in Roman Britain.
The objection was the BBC portraying the above picture as a ‘typical’ Roman family, which it clearly doesn’t
Which, in response received:
Where does it say ‘typical Roman family’?
Also, to be very pedantic, we’re all Africans. We should get used to that idea.
Diversity of skin colour, hair colour, eye colour/shape is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
Humans need to grow up.
A great shill example. The image represented a high-ranking soldier in Rome, which would make it somewhat typical (or at least normalized) if someone of that nature could advance to that rank. Additionally, see did say it was typical in a different outlet.
That would be fairly obvious to debunk, so then the shill nature comes in after that sentence:
- Derail the conversation: (“we’re all africans”) – Which is a heavily debatable point, especially with recent evidence suggesting the “Out of Africa” theory is false. But any response to this would then derail the initial reasonable comment, as users would then begin arguing the Out Of Africa debate.
- Distort the conversation: (“Diversity of skin colour, hair colour, eye colour/shape is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.”) – Which has little to no relevance of falsifying history. Thereby distorting the conversation and the argument.
- Ad Hominem (“Humans need to grow up.”) – to provoke people to not debate the individual, but also to get upset emotionally, thereby distorting and derailing the conversation.
This is a great example of a shill, as it hits each target.
Let’s move on:
Seems reasonable to me. I don’t understand why people get so irate about this sort of thing.
This is a good distortioner comment. No one is “irate” about some lady drawing Romans as blacks. This distortioner is setting up for future shill comments, such as:
Agreed. But let’s face it. There’s a lot of residual racism involved.
Which is also clearly a shill. If you want accurate history, you are a racist. It’s a provocation to anger, a distortion of any arguments about lack of proof of high-ranking black Roman soldiers, and a derailing of the conversation to racism instead of the topic at hand.
Or other comments, such as:
Because it undermines the whole schtick they have about Britain being a white country, the very thought that there may have been non white immigrants in Britain sends chills down their spines.
Same shill argument as above.
Just plain old racism just under the surface and thinly disguised. Nothing to worry about, the usual shit.
Same shill argument as above.
All of these were perfectly set up for by the first poster. Shills all the way down the comment line.
And what if he was black? And what if he wasn’t?
Why are people so freak out and feel threatened by the presence of blacks or Brown in early Britain? The people who are need to take a long ,hard deep look at their insecurities – it was people like them who created Piltdown man- in a vain and racist attempt to deny Africa the origin of humanity- expletive fools.
Pay special attention to the “Why are people so freak out and feel threatened” – this is a gold standard for shills.
It is the tri-fecta: it distorts, derails, and angers those who read it. For leftists, it makes them acquiesce.
Instead of commenting on the actual issue, the immediate response is to “defend your honor” and say you’re not insecure or not freaked out, it’s just…
As this commenter does:
They’re not “freaked out” at all, just tired of the relentless PC virtue-signalling.
But to no use, because then they just target that supposed “insecurity”.
Notice again how this shill utilizes the “Africa the origin of humanity” topic. It makes knowledgeable individuals want to argue against that to prove the underlying premise wrong, since evidence is coming out to contrary of Out Of Africa™.
However, in attempting to argue that point, the shill would then double-down and put in another derailing argument, that would then need to be argued. It’s a forever black hole. You could never actually argue the first point, because they would never let you.
There is an excellent example of circular logic along with shilling in this train of comments:
“There is evidence that proves them wrong.”* Lists a bunch of Romans who may have been black, or white, we’re not really sure* Sure proved them wrong…
considering the breadth of the Roman Empire and any soldier could rise through the ranks regardless of where they were from – its extremely unlikely that there weren’t any black soldiers stationed in Britain. Only a racist would have a problem with that
Sure, I was just pointing out how the article claims to have evidence proving the naysayers wrong…then presents zero evidence.
But she presented more evidence than the people who claimed that no-one was black in Roman society though?
No evidence is more evidence than zero evidence, because of racism.
Moving on. This is a good comment train as well, with shills bouncing off of other shills:
“What is bewildering is why some people are so determined to white-out early British history” Because it gives them a false sense of their own superiority.
Insecurity, these as frightening times and people clutch whatever straws they can.
Absolutely. We went to the British Museum the other week, and around the Sutton Hoo exhibition there are amazing examples of metal-craft technology dating hundreds of years BC, and brought into England by the Romans.When the Romans left, we could not reproduce the technology. The best we could do was faffing around with pewter, which is no good for cooking, nor weapons, and doesn’t look good.I remember one beautiful exhibit, a tinned and decorated bronze saucepan, dating from the Romans, found in Kent. The craftsman who had made it had stamped his name on it: “Africanus”.
You should be getting good at this by now. One shill posts one comment followed by numerous other shills bouncing off the opportunity.
Moving on. Another example of this, and one of my personal favorites in the entire article:
Professor Beard was responding to a tweet by far-right conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson, who is a regular on the Alex Jones radio show. That should tell you all you need to know about his qualifications, and his adherence to truth. Watson was talking out of his arse, as usual. He jumped on an opportunity to wave his far-right anti-foreigner flag, before bothering to fact-check. Even as a young schoolchild back in the early 80’s, I was aware that Roman Britain was ethnically diverse. That might freak out the resurgent far-right, but it is an immovable fact.
Paul Joseph Watson is like an irl Dale Maily … but even more absurd and definitely less likable.
Dead right. Paul Joseph Watson is a nobody, just a sidekick to Alex Jones. Professor Beard obviously had no idea who Watson is, and just wanted to correct his racist brain-fart, but Watson’s job is to spread disinformation. It’s what he does. He is hilarious to listen to, with his earnest, fast-paced patter. It’s like sewage pouring out of a cracked pipe. He must have banged his head repeatedly as a baby.
Immediate derailing of the actual issue at hand, straight into unjustifiable anger targeted toward someone not even mentioned in the article.
All around, great shilling work.
Another hilarious attempt at outright disinformation, with the usual response:
Just because the Ladybird book of ancient Rome painted all Romans as white does not constitute a fact. DNA analysis of Roman bones shows a bewildering array of ethnicity from all over the known Roman world. Slaves were at least as likely to be white as black. Perhaps some of Professor Beard’s detractors should examine their own family DNA to discover what the truth is!
Can you link to anything that supports those claims?I don’t know, but have just read the Wikipedia page on Roman slavery, and it claims rather the opposite;” Generally slaves in Italy were indigenous Italians, with a minority of foreigners (including both slaves and freedmen) born outside of Italy estimated at 5% of the total in the capital,” “because the slaves imported in Italy were native Europeans, and very few if any of them had extra European origin” It goes on, and there are references
Not true during Roman times. Black Africans were not that common in Roman world. North Africans of Egyptian/Berber/Carthaginian etc. origin were not black.
Egypt was full of Nubians going as far as having Nubian pharaohs. You really are invested in this ‘everyone must be white thing’ aren’t you.
A lie, met with actual historical evidence, then shifted into a “everyone must be white” discussion. It’s a derailing attempt to ignore that the evidence does not fit the original argument. So instead of responding to the original argument, just create a new argument about them being racist.
Moving on. Let’s end strong:
Moses was black, Jesus did not have blue eyes, the Romans didn’t all look like Russell Crowe. There’s an excellent scene in “True Romance” where Dennis Hopper plays on Christopher Walken’s racial pride, it really stings some people, they like to pretend they’re superior to others because where they’re from is a ‘first world’ country today.
You should not need help deciphering this one by this point.
You can go through the rest of the comments if you like, but I will save you the horror here. They are all like that. They must be, it serves a very useful purpose, as we disclosed in Part 3.
Now, I want to clarify some things:
- Once you can spot distortioners and shills, the effect they have wears off on you. You will no longer feel anger or loneliness when you read them. Because you know they are fake. You know they are not reality. That is not the “majority opinion”, nor is it accurate. Quite honestly, once you can spot it, it becomes hilarious. Reading some of these made be get a lot of good laughs in. Where before you may have been arguing against them in your mind, once you understand their tactics, you can’t help but laugh as if you caught a 5 year old with their hand in the cookie jar. You wouldn’t debate the 5 year old, just as you don’t debate the shill.
- Not all shills are shills. Some are real people that have drank the kool aid. However, these are far fewer in number in comparison to the real shills online. But do know that the only reason these “real” people think this way is because the shills have sucessfully implanted what they wanted into them.
Shills and distortioners attempt to work every corner possible. Most of them have numerous accounts. In many instances, it is likely that one shill could use 5-10 different accounts to build an entire comment line themselves. Some as people pro- and some anti- position, but all being used to build toward their desired goal.
Entire comments sections can be just a few individuals, even though it shows hundreds of comments. It depends on the severity of the article to the shill’s goals.
Many of the individuals in our comment example that had favorable arguments had very weak arguments put forward. This made it easy for shills and distortioners to break them down and seem like they were the right ones. These agents work both ways. Pay attention to weak arguments from our side as much as you do shilling from their side. They are often the same agents.
With that said, we will conclude our first case study here. Stay tuned for further examples in coming articles.
As always, share this series with everyone you know. The only way to fight these agents are to alert others of them.