June Gaslight

Ripped off from Facebook with Gaslighting Adjustments…

The odd nugget of journalistic genius and wisdom whereby Jeremy Corbyn is blamed for the loss of the election needs to be addressed. This is an attempt at covering-up the widespread PysOp against Corbyn. That’s why people supposedly “didn’t like him.”

The fact that he behaved less ruthlessly than your average politician DID NOT lose him the election at all. If it wasn’t for the illegal rigging of the result he won fair and square. The #antisemitism lies and #propaganda weren’t enough to do the hatchet job on their own. That’s why the Russian interference documents will never be published. Any document that goes anywhere near it will be swamped with redaction lines. This government is corrupt. Observe how the #jobsfortheboys #nepotism is ever present.

Look at the huge areas of gaslighting currently happening in June 2020:

  • Continuing destruction of the environment and health standards. While eyes are on #COVID19 they are dismantling and overwriting all sorts of things such as food labelling and standards to allow the introduction of GMO foods, hormone injected beef and cholrinated chicken… or restarting fracking… or starting the planning process for a SECOND new Nuclear power station. HS2, the whitest elephant in the room, blunders on. We need rail investment, but honestly, it would be cheaper to build a tunnel from London to Birmingham than this nature-blighting, vanity project.
  • Human rights. The small print accompanying everything they do, but we, me, you, everyone, are not informed of the really awful bits. If you dig you’ll find them. Our rights are being eroded by the day, just play around with searches and you’ll find all sorts. #powergrabs
  • Funding for Overseas Aid will go, that was announced this week. Thinly veiled statements of intent to reduce funding for countries with black citizens in favour of white populations. So much for #blacklivesmatter
  • In your face embarassment. A £million for a paint job on an aeroplane for Presidential-style jaunts. Peanut money, I guess, but its return will be increasing British embarassment every time BJ steps out of it.
  • The Rich Getting Away With It. Prince Andrew will see no force applied for him to face old murdered Epstein’s antics. The rich are on holiday… A new royal yacht. Shame about the poor people.
  • Expect Austerity Measures. Austerity is no more a useful or necessary strategy than it ever was. #austerity #unnecessary What we need is a Jobs Guarentee, Modern Monetary Theory and a Green New Deal – the right wing agenda in UK and USA is unlikely to deliver us any change to the current capitalist foot stamping on the face of humanity. Triple lock on pensions is to go. They could also tax the rich! But they won’t of course.
  • The constant lies from the UK government! Lies about COVID death numbers, for instance. The total is at least 20,000 more than the “official” toll. Withholding the newer, higher R number. None of the “5 rules” satisfied. #science A 2nd wave of COVID19 is surely unavoidable; though they try to mould every detail on briefings to sound like all the stupid measures they’re about to take aren’t going to kill lots of people. They stopped “following the science” months ago but they lie about it. They blame Apple for the flop of the contact tracing app but that’s a lie too, they never even spoke to them. Hancock just stood there lying into the camera, not realising that Apple may be able to hear him. #idiot #liar
  • Brexit Disaster Imminent. A worldwide pandemic isn’t important enough to slow that runaway train down! Pile that on top of the #pandemic and see what a catastrophe we’ve got on our hands. A brilliant legacy for our kids and grandkids. All the Brexiteers will be dead, they won’t be the ones to feel the pain.
  • An Un-United Kingdom. #Scotland is likely to not only go Independent but rebuild Hadrian’s Wall!
  • No change in the mainstream media propaganda machine which includes not only the right-wing, billionaire-backed newspapers but also the BBC, all TV, all Hollywood output. Even social media platforms! It is all Gaslighting. If it was just shades of opinion it wouldn’t be so bad. But no the real facts are not even being discussed. Meanwhile, Julian Assange is slowly but surely dying, again where’s the media coverage and outrage? Another hero that should be celebrated, but he’ll die instead. He has committed no crime (that he hasn’t paid for) Unless you say publishing factually correct information on war crimes, a crime. #wikileaks

Welcome to the Brave New 1984 World Order.

Gaslighted by the British Army

The British Army has been reorganised over the last 10 years as part of a plan called Army 2020 Refine. While generally shrinking the Army organisation, there is one area which is new and growing and that is 77th Brigade. This is the UK’s military PysOp group.

At full strength, the Brigade would consist of 453 military and civilian personnel with staff also from FCO and the Stabilisation Unit, of this total there will be 440 military posts in the brigade with up to 42% of these being reservists. A FOI answer in December 2016 stated that the brigade consisted of 182 regular and 266 reserve posts with only half of those posts filled.

In April 2019, a Scottish Labour candidate faced questions over links to a ‘secretive military propaganda unit’ aka 77th Brigade. The implication being is that 77th Brigade was involved in operations to secure the union in the Scottish Referundum, a point made within Craig Murray’s blog. (Craig Murray is now indited, by the way, because of his legal reporting of the failed Alex Salmond court case).

In October 2019, a Twitter exec was accused of working for 77th Brigade… “Twitter Executive Revealed to Be ‘Psyops’ Soldier Linked to Spreading Disinformation Across Social Media”. In this article, it reveals the comments of David Miller, a professor of political sociology in the School for Policy Studies at the University of Bristol, who has been studying propaganda and public relations efforts concerning the British government. He believes that the links being social media and 77th Brigade “threat to our democracy,” saying

“I would say I know a good amount about army propaganda and ‘psyops’ operations as they’re called, but what is interesting is how little information we have 77th Brigade, I suppose it means that all their work is covert, but what I would like to know is what they exactly are they doing? Are they just tracking accounts or are they trying to influence people’s views? …And because we know so little about exactly what they’re doing, we have to look elsewhere for clues. If we look at the documents leaked by Edward Snowden about the NSA and its JTRIG [Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group] program, we can see that governments are clearly lying and deceiving people by creating troll farms and fake accounts that try to influence the way people think. What the governments will say is that they are trying to prevent radicalization and acts of terrorism, but I think it’s deceptive and is a threat to our democracy. Twitter is also deceiving us because it is not acting as transparently as it could. If they are working with army personnel in this way, it is extremely damaging to our democracy.”

David Miller October, 2019
University of Bristol professor David Miller
University of Bristol professor David Miller says that links between the British Army and Twitter are a “threat to democracy”. University of Bristol

Now we know that 77th Brigade has been working to counter disinformation in the CovId-19 lock-down. Is that the disinformation from the UK Government, Donald Trump or where? That bit is not so clear.

What we do now know is captured from a whistleblower and reported UK Column, Friday 24th April, 2020. It’s worth a watch.

June 2020 Update: Kevin Ryan discusses the propspects that Covid-19 pandemic was a PysOps….

Search Engine Manipulation Effect

Big Tech subliminal manipulation of search engines effectively ends democracy as we know it, according to congressional testimony by Dr Robert Epstien in July 2019 (No relative of Jeffrey, by the way). See video below of his testimony.

We know it happens

In April 2015, Hillary Clinton hired Stephanie Hannon from Google to be her chief technology officer. In 2015 Eric Schmidt, chairman of Google’s holding company started a company – The Groundwork – for the specific purpose of electing Clinton. Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, called Google her ‘secret weapon’. Researchers estimated that Google could help her win the nomination and could deliver between 2.6 and 10.4 million general election votes to Clinton via SEME – Search Engine Manipulation Effect. Since search results are ephemeral, legally permissiable evidence could only come via a Google whistleblower or an external hacker. However, Epstien proved this occured with experimental results.

In addition, on June 9, 2016, SourceFed alleged that Google manipulated its searches in favor of Clinton because the recommended searches for her are different than the recommended searches to both Yahoo and Bing and yet the searches for both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are identical to both Yahoo and Bing. When “Hillary Clinton Ind” was entered in the search bar, Google Autocomplete suggested “Hillary Clinton Indiana”, while the other vendors suggested “Hillary Clinton indictment”. Furthermore, SourceFed placed the recommended searches for Clinton on Google Trends and observed that the Google suggestion was searched less than the suggestion from the other vendors.

Dr Epstien’s Video

Robert Epstin’s Video click here from CSPAN.

Relationship to Other Technologies

So search engine results alone can manipulate voters and votes by a huge proportion. This is the impact on intelligent people SEARCHING for information… now consider the impact of Cambridge Analytica’s approach of PUSHING information to casual social media users by ads, messaging and automated “likes”. See 1, 2, 3. Yet the same “ephemeral” characteristics apply to both – both near impossible to detect and only available to the rich and technically savy elite.

Implications for GE2019

The Big Tech effect has been known about for years. The Governments knew what they doing. The anti-Labour, anti-Jeremy Corbyn PysOps was in place since at least 2017 and probably before. Don’t blame the lambs impacted by information manipulation: blame the people that enforced this terrible Tory government onto us.

What is all the fuss about Cambridge Analytica? Part 3

So Part 1 described the background and origins of Cambridge Analytica (CA).

Part 2 described the objective of Robert Mercer and with Carole Cadwallar describing the impact on Vote Leave.

This part is about the methods and implications of CA on electoral processes.

Hitting the Headlines

In March 2018, multiple media outlets broke news of Cambridge Analytica’s business practices: The New York Times and The Observer reported that the company had used Facebook data for its campaign activities and shortly afterwards, Channel 4 News aired undercover investigative videos showing CA CEO Alexander Nix boasting about using prostitutes, bribery sting operations, and honey traps to discredit politicians on whom it conducted “opposition research”. CA claimed it had “ran all of (Donald Trump’s) digital campaign” in 2016 Presidential election. In response in the UK, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) issued a warrant to search the company’s servers. Meanwhile Facebook banned CA from advertising on its platform, saying that it had been deceived. On 23 March 2018, the ICO was granted a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica’s London offices.

Amazon said that they suspended CA from using their Cloud Hosting Services. The governments of India and Brazil demanded that CA report how their data was used in political campaigning.

In early July 2018, the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office announced it intended to fine Facebook £500,000 ($663,000) over the data scandal, this being the maximum fine allowed at the time of the breach, saying Facebook “contravened the law by failing to safeguard people’s information”.

Also in July 2019, in the USA, Facebook was fined $5billion for its minor part in the data breach.

Rather too late… CA is now “gone” but their methods, their “genie” is now out of the bottle.

What did they do?

Wikipedia describes the method CA used to gain personal data. CA developed a Facebook app called “This Is Your Digital Life.” Aleksandr Kogan, a data scientist at Cambridge University, developed the app sometimes called “thisisyourdigitallife” and provided the app to CA who then posted it to Facebook. This third-party app then had permission to acquire data from Facebook users that not only entered data into a quiz-like game but also gave the app access to information on the user’s friends network; this resulted in the data of about 87 million users, the majority of whom had no idea their personal data was being collected for political ends. It goes without saying that the app breached Facebook’s terms of service but Facebook did not police any app particularly well (hence the reason for the $5b fine).

Follow this link to hear Alexander Nix describe the CA Big Data approach elections or this one to hear how big data helped Senator Ted Cruz in 2016. Nix claims that CA had 4000 parameters for every voter in the USA. From these parameters, not only demographics and location were uncovered but also psychographic profiles, the attitudes of each person distilled down to a few variables! This allowed, for any given political campaign, what kind of advertisement would be most effective to persuade a particular person for vote (or not vote) for any particular candidate or cause.

What CA has invented is the technology to subvert the traditional election processes to introduce:

  • Personalised messages – Nix claims top down broadcasting is dead. All future elections will be personalised messages based on a person’s psychographic profile.
  • Psychographic profiles are used to identify, and then reinforce, bias and prejudices.
  • Political promises are not on mainstream media, so not open to secutiny and debate, but are on social media. Fired up and forgotten with no follow up – reverting back to before Hansard when politicians were not held to account for any commitments.
  • Complete Situation Awareness of each individual’s motivations so that in all probability, each person can be manipulated using targeted messages to vote in the way expected (plus leaving the election to nefarious manipulation).

What are Psychographics?

Psychographic profiles can be valuable in the fields of marketing, demographics, opinion research, prediction, and social research in general.

All the research for political ends has already been established for marketing and advertising of products. Demographic information includes gender, age, income, marital status – the dry facts. In the past marketing was all about Demographics: making sure your advert went out to males or females of a partical age. Psychographics are kind of like demographics. Psychographic information might be your buyer’s habits, hobbies, spending habits and values. Demographics explain “who” the buyer is, while psychographics explain “why” they buy. Advertisers now reach their target audience both by demographics and psychographics. What does it say about you if you drive BMW and read the Telegraph… or if own an allotment and make jam? All this information has been condensed down into a set of number. This approach was proven in the commercial market, CA weaponised Psychographics for electioneering…

Psychographics gained prominence in the 2016 US presidential election since both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump used them extensively in microtargeting advertisements to narrow constituencies.

So CA’s “This Is Your Digital Life” basically provided a mainline feed into pyschographic data. But CA also collected data on voters using sources such as consumer behaviourinternet activity, and other public and private sources. According to The Guardian, CA used psychological data derived from millions of Facebook users, largely without users’ permission or knowledge. Another source of information was the “Cruz Crew” mobile app that “gamified” election campaigning by giving points for the number of political social media messages circulated by the player. But more than that it tracked physical movements and contacts on the player’s smart phone and so invaded personal data more than any previous electioneering method.

Alexander Nix, chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, October 2016, said “Today in the United States we have somewhere close to four or five thousand data points on every individual … So we model the personality of every adult across the United States, some 230 million people.”

CA’s data analysis methods were to a large degree based on the academic work of Michal Kosinski. In 2008, Kosinski had joined the Psychometrics Centre of Cambridge University where he then developed with his colleagues a profiling system using general online data, Facebook-likes, and smartphone data. He showed that with a limited number of “likes”, people can be analysed better than friends or relatives can do and that individual psychological targeting is a powerful tool to influence people.

This aspect of facebook-likes is absolutely key and – as far as I can tell – is missed in most write-ups of the Presidential Election 2016 and GE2019 Fraud.

Facebook “Likes”

Most, but not all. It was discussed extensively in 2018 by CBS which states “Facebook ‘likes’ can signal a lot about a person. Maybe even enough to fuel a voter-manipulation effort like the one a Trump-affiliated data-mining firm stands accused of — and which Facebook may have enabled. The social network is under fire after The New York Times and The Guardian newspaper reported that former Trump campaign consultant Cambridge Analytica used data, including user likes, inappropriately obtained from roughly 50 million Facebook users to try to influence elections.

The issue of the addictive nature of facebook and the dopamine hit when someone “likes” your post is well known. So how important is that “like” if it just came from a bot? Can they even do that? Yes.

Technology to Support CA

If the data collected by CA was all performed by party workers then would it all be bad? Probably not: doorstepping in elections trys to collect similar type of data. But CA introduced the mechanism to do this quite automatically, without permission, by impersonation and by the the “backdoor”. Besides the (illegal) aggregation of data from a various sources, this is the type of technology that CA used in order to recognise and give facebook “likes”:

  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Sentiment Analysis – this sort of AI can read thousands of posts and determine whether any particular post supports the camapign, against it or whether it is just another cat video.
  • Robot Process Automation (RPA) This allows a series of automatic actions to occur online, for instance: read a facebook message, work out if the sentiment supports the camapign, clicks the “like” button.
  • Bots and Sock Puppets – basically fake accounts – either a Bot which is a fake account which performs a repetative RPA action, for example, “liking” a facebook message; or a sock puppet, a human controlled fake account, that can enter into hundreds of discussions online dissing the opponents and/or talking up the camapign with prepared slogans.

The set up and running of this technology requires a huge amount of capital intensive investment (this is where the rich, organised “few” outgun the poor, disorganised “many”). So democracy is now a hidden war between people-powered electioneering (“the people”) against a limitless army of hidden robots controlled and funded by a few billionaires. This technological army is not even in party headquarters but can be outsourced to friendly front organisations, commercial organisations or even foriegn powers.

The Hub

The only thing needed for any political HQ is the data collection hub. HQ will ensure the right campaign messages are being fed in a way that is compelling… to a “plan”. That requires technology again but it is cheaper and readily available off the shelf in the form of a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system. This a tool to manage an organisations interaction with current and potential customers – everytime you phone up a major corporation nowadays you are being managed by a CRM system such as Microsoft Dynamics CRM, Salesforce or SugarCRM. Now replace the word “customers” with “voters” and the tool works just as well. Just look at the (proven) results of CRM and see how they apply to election campaigns.

  1. Enhanced ability to target profitable customers. (Replace “profitable customers” with “likely voters”)
  2. Integrated assistance across channels. (Use of Bots, Sock Puppets, Newspapers or leaflets to promote your propaganda)
  3. Enhanced sales force efficiency and effectiveness. (Replace “salesforce” with “campaign staff”)
  4. Improved pricing. (Instead of pricing, think “extract donations”)
  5. Customized products and services. (Tailor message for particular poltical concern: health, environment, business etc)
  6. Improved customer service efficiency and effectiveness. (Improve approval ratings)
  7. Individualized marketing messages (also called plans). (A set of messages just to engage each individual voter, there can be multiple plans depending on the voter’s concern)
  8. Connect customers and all channels on a single platform. (A complete view of Voter Intentions).

Architect of the Vote Leave and Conservative GE2019, Dominic Cummings, called his central database of voters, the Voter Intention Collection System (VICS). It is described in his blog. He describes how he developed ads for social media, trialed them and targetted them. The data feeding VICS was both “conventional and unconventional” – from that we can assume conventional = demographic data – freely available to political parties – and unconventional = psychographic… as described above – illegal. Illegal to the price of $5billion just to facebook alone for allowing a loophole in its software. How much more illegal is it for people to deliberately exploit that loophole?

But wait there’s more…

Just consider the power now available to the rich elites with such technology at their disposal:

  • A list of every voter.
  • With social media data then the on-line accounts can be linked to voters in the electoral register probably in 80% of all cases.
  • This enables the identification of all people strongly aligned with campaign messages and will vote.
  • And the identification of all people strongly opposing the campaign.
  • This identifies the battle ground! The non-aligned people.

Pyschographics help sort out the battleground. Since the social network shows who is friends with whom, then the probability of voter intentions can be calculated with different levels of certainity… until you have complete and utter situation awareness of how people will vote. People do respond to the information they’ve received but if all the information is biased and plays into pre-set grooves enabled by the mainstream media then, people respond collectively in herd like behaviour. Dominic Cummings tested his “messaging” in carefully selected groups. When the message had the right effect, he sent out targeted political ads and using the AI and Big Data analysis re-calculated the expected voter intentions so that he could predict an 80 seat majority for the Tories. And he got an 80 seat majority for the Tories. This level of estimation precision requires computers. And probably coercion (see below). The Conservative Party was able to deliver an astonishing efficiency at delivering seats in 2019: One seat for every 38264 votes (a 10% efficiency improvement over 2017) while the LibDems were amazingly less efficient: one each seat for every 300,000 votes, a 50% decrease in efficency. And, unlike Jo Swinson travelling the country in a bus (and even losing her seat), Boris Johnson never really needed to go out and campaign or even do many TV interviews.

Minimum Fraud / Maximum Outcome

There are further tools in the toolchest. Having complete situation awareness allows other useful things:

  • it identifies marginal consistencies.
  • it identifies people that are unlikly to vote
  • it identifies people that will be using a postal vote
  • it identifies people that are misaligned with the electoral registers

We know postal voting fraud exists and is widespread. Complete situation awareness of voter intentions now allows two useful forms of election fraud, which can be set at the minimum level that arouses the least suspicion:

  • Voter Suppression for those people of the wrong demographics and pyschometrics that are misaligned with the electoral register and/or registered for postal votes. (eg postal votes not delivered, arrive late or invalidated). Voter suppression is regarded as a non-crime – the voter is always blamed for any administrative error.
  • Ballot Box Stuffing, by postal votes, impersonating people that are unlikely to vote. A virtually undetectable crime!

What’s all the fuss?

Now do you see what the fuss is all about?

  • No need to campaign
  • Lower campaign costs (as long the computer system costs can be hidden)
  • No need to be held to account for any promises or policies
  • Set up the perfect way to secure a seat with the minimum level of fraud – so small that it is hardly detectable.
  • Confidence of predicting the election result nationally (100% accuracy)
  • Confidence of securing any particular local seat (as long as there is a high level of postal votes!)

Propaganda and Gaslighting GE2019

Before completing the Cambridge Analytica series, there is something to discuss. The difference between propaganda and gaslighting and why this matters when considering GE2019 Election Fraud.

Propaganda is a very powerful tool to sway populations to particular viewpoints. It can be used for good or ill. Product advertising uses propaganda techniques – or is that vice versa!? Along with the details of propaganda – taken from experts in the subject – there are also things you can do to counter propaganda.

Propaganda (and how to avoid it)

1 – Truth is not the absence of propaganda; propaganda thrives in presenting different kinds of truth, including half truths, incomplete truths, limited truths, out of context truths. Modern propaganda is most effective when it presents information as accurately as possible. The Big Lie or Tall Tale is the most ineffective propaganda.
Counterpropaganda: A concrete fact is better than propaganda and failing anything scientifically provable, honest opposition is practical, moral and unbiased can counter any false propaganda message. Propaganda if revealed, will be seen as biased and negated. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32 New English Bible
2 – Propaganda is not so much designed to change opinions so much as reinforce existing opinions, prejudices, attitudes. The most successful propaganda will lead people to action or inaction through reinforcement of what people already believe to be true.
Counterpropaganda: The only way to defend against it is to be more aware of the tactics being used and counter uneducated opinions and views early.

3 – Education is not necessarily the best protection against propaganda. Intellectuals and “the educated” are the most vulnerable to propaganda campaigns because they (1) tend to absorb the most information (including secondhand information, hearsay, rumors, and unverifiable information); (2) are compelled to have an opinion on matters of the day and thus expose themselves more to others’ opinions and propaganda campaigns; and (3) consider themselves above the influence of propaganda, thereby making themselves more susceptible to propaganda.
Counterpropaganda we are all susceptible of propaganda! To say that one is free of the influence of propaganda is a sure sign of its pervasive existence in society.
4 – What makes the study of propaganda so problematic is that it is generally regarded as the study of the darker side of our nature; the study of their evil versus our good. Those whom we consider evil thrive in propaganda, while we spread only the truth. The best way to study propaganda is to separate one’s ethical judgments from the phenomenon itself. Propaganda thrives and exists, for ethical and unethical purposes.
Counterpropaganda: propaganda is a powerful tool which can be used for good or ill. The way to decide its value is to use the principle of cui bono: “who benefits”.
5 – Propaganda seeks to modify public opinion, particularly to make people conform to the point of view of the propagandist. In this respect, any propaganda is a form of manipulation, to adapt an individual to a particular activity.
Counterpropaganda watch out for arguments that are logically inconsistent or attack the person rather than the point of view.
6 – Modern forms of communication, including mass media, are tools for propaganda. Without the monopoly concentration of mass media, there can be no modern propaganda. (Before mass media there was only rhetoric.) For propaganda to thrive, the media must remain concentrated, news agencies and services must be limited, the press must be under central command, and radio, film, and television monopolies must pervade.
Counterpropaganda: use of different information sources including non-main stream sources allows you to pick apart propaganda. Always treat a single source of information as suspect or fake news.
7 – One must become aware of propaganda: limitations, strengths, influence, and persuasive qualities, for it to be effective.
Counterpropaganda: propaganda only works where there is “fertile ground”. Preparation is required. A need must be articulated. Watch out for prepared Problem/Reaction/Solution scenarios.
8 – In the west private commercial propaganda is as important to notions of democracy as governmental propaganda. Commercial appeals to the people through advertising, which plays on irrational fantasies and impulses, are some of the most pervasive forms of propaganda in existence today.
Counterpropaganda: anything overly simplistic eg “take back control” or “get Brexit done” have only one purpose: to hide complexity and realities.
9 – Propaganda in a democracy establishes truth in the sense that it creates “true believers” who are as ideologically committed to the democratic progress as others are ideologically committed to its control. The perpetuation of democratic ideals and beliefs in the face of concentrated power in propaganda institutions (media, political institutions) is a triumph of propaganda in modern society.
Counterpropaganda: without access to media and political institutions then democracy will fail.

Gaslighting

As mentioned in previous Daily GasLamp articles, GE2019 was more than propaganda – point 9 above should give most people pause for thought. It was a PysOp – another name for “Gaslighting”

What is Gaslighting and how do you know we are subject to it?
Patricia Evans, seven “warning signs” of gaslighting is that the abuser will

  • Withhold information from the victim;
  • Counter information to fit the abuser’s perspective;
  • Discount information;
  • Using verbal abuse, often in the form of jokes;
  • Block and divert the victim’s attention from outside sources;
  • Minimise the victim’s worth; and,
  • Undermining the victim by gradually weakening them

While psychologist Elinor Greenberg describes three common methods of gaslighting:

  • Hiding.
  • Changing.
  • Control.

You can easily see examples in the past where Gaslighting has been carried out, preparing the ground to make propaganda effective.
If the UK electoral has been gaslighted lets look for the warning signs and methods:

  • Withhold information: the unsuitability of BJ as being PM has been withheld. It should have been front page news (it was… but never followed up).
  • Counter information: the leaks about the NHS in US trade talks where countered by Sky News with “it was a leak from Russia”
  • Discount information: the Labour Manifesto hardly mentioned by the BBC
  • Using verbal abuse, often in the form of jokes; Just listen to BBC Radio and TV Comedy: constant potshots over the issue of A-S
  • Block and divert the victim’s attention from outside sources: World wide concerns over the Conservatives Hard Brexit were never mentioned.
  • Minimise worth: the crowds greeting JC as he toured the country were never given any airtime.
  • Undermining the victim by gradually weakening them: constant questions on A-S. Intense interrogations on TV but only on issues that suited
  • Hiding. BJ and other conservatives never given intense interviews.
  • Changing. Trying to change the Labour leadership that had made the UK Labour Party the largest political organisation in Western Europe.
  • Control. Control of airtime, column inches and when there was some exposure, the agenda was changed to meet the propaganda objective.

So Gaslighting is more than propaganda and more than just the control of the Main Stream Media… there’s more. To be followed up in the Daily GasLamp….

What is all the fuss about Cambridge Analytica? Part 2

Part 1 described the origins of Cambridge Analytica when Steve Bannon persuaded oligargh Robert Mercer to invest in the company in order to infulence the 2016 presidential election. Who is Robert Mercer? He is an American multi-multi-millionaire who funded various right wing political activity including Nigel Farage’s Brexit campaign as well as funding many right-wing political causes in the United States, such as Breitbart News and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for president.

Mercer started out as computer scientist, an early artificial intelligence researcher, then later became CEO of the hedge fund company Renaissance Technologies. In 2015, The Washington Post called Mercer one of the ten most influential billionaires in politics. Mercer was shown data that indicated “voters were becoming alienated from both political parties and mainstream candidates” which probably led him to support Trump in the Republican race in 2016.

To test run, Cambridge Analytica’s approach to infulence elections, Mercer became involved in the EU Referendum, donating the services of Cambridge Analytica (CA) to Nigel Farage and Leave.EU. CA harvested data from Facebook profiles (more about in Part 3) in order to target them with individualized ads to vote for Brexit. CA, through Canadian digital firm AggregateIQ also advised Dominic Cummings’ VoteLeave campaign, which delivered an estimated one billion individually curated targeted adverts to voters in the lead up to the Brexit referendum, in contravention of established voting rules. Neither VoteLeave and Leave.EU informed the UK electoral commission of Mercer’s donations. In 2018, the Electoral Commission found the VoteLeave campaign guilty of breaking electoral law.

For the 2016 US Presidential Election, it was revealed that Mercer funded anti-muslim adverts on facebook.

“Adverts”… it sounds so tame, doesn’t it? Part 3 will be discussing this in more detail but in the meantime, this is a must-watch TED talk by Carole Cadwallar who slams into facebook and the impact that social media is making on the UK’s antiquated election laws.

What is all the fuss about Cambridge Analytica? Part 1

To avoid making this article epic length, it will be broken down in stages. This is Part 1, Background

Cambridge Analytica was founded (around 2013-2015) by conservative businessmen Steve Bannon and Oligargh Robert Mercer in order to infulence the 2016 presidential election. Around 15 million dollars was originally invested into the company by Mercer as a subsidiary to the SCL group.

CA did not spring out of nowhere. It has a history and before delving into CA, you need to know more about the SCL Group and the Behavioural Dynamics Institute (BDI)

In 1990, Nigel Oakes, who had a background in TV production and advertising, founded the BDI as a research facility for strategic communication: the study of mass behaviour and how to change it. Oakes thought that to shift mass opinion, academic insights as gained through psychologists and anthropologists at BDI should be applied, and would be more successful than traditional advertising methods. Oakes established Strategic Communication Laboratories in 1993 to monetise the BDI research while BDI became a non-profit affiliate of SCL.

SCL was successful commercially and then expanded into military and political arenas. It became known for alleged involvement “in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting”. In 2005, “with a glitzy exhibit” at Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI), “the United Kingdom’s largest showcase for military technology”, SCL demonstrated its capacity in “influence operations”, in particular, “to help orchestrate a sophisticated campaign of mass deception” on the public. According to its website, SCL has participated in over 25 international political and electoral campaigns since 1994.

SCL’s involvement in the political world has been primarily in the developing world where it has been used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will. It uses what have been called “PsyOps” to provide influence the thinking of the target audience. SCL claimed to be able to help foment coups. According to its website, SCL has influenced elections in Italy, Latvia, Ukraine, Albania, Romania, South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Mauritius, India, Indonesia, The Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, Colombia, Antigua, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, St. Kitts & Nevis, and Trinidad & Tobago. While the company initially got involved in elections in the United Kingdom, it ceased to do so after 1997 because staff members did not exhibit the same “aloof sensibility” as with projects abroad.

SCL claims that its methodology (more on this in a later part) has been approved or endorsed by agencies of the Government of the United Kingdom and the Federal government of the United States, among others.

CEO of CA is Alexander Nix. Follow this link to hear him describe the CA Big Data approach elections or this one to hear how big data helped Senator Ted Cruz in 2016. Where is Nix today?

For Part 2 click here

GasLighting from Number 10 and the expose of election fraud from Iowa

Background

The 2019 General Election was the culmination of a Military-style PsyOp (Psychological Operation) managed from the Institute for Statecraft with help from friendly nations. Full Situational Awareness was coordinated by Dominic Cummings using his Voter Intention Collection System (VICS), just like he did for VL, recording every voter intention. With 100% accuracy, the Tories obtained the 80 seat majority predicted on Nov 25th, 2019, by micromanaging the postal votes to suppress voters or stuff ballots (imitating people they knew wouldn’t be voting). After all there was precious little evidence on the ground to indicate that the Tories were campaigning at all in the north…

Johnson settles in

Boris Johnson “won” the election, having been tipped off that Trump could possibly start WW3, he decided to go on holiday to forget his election promises, returning fresh to double-down on austerity. Fortunately WW3 did not start but an innocent airliner was downed in the confusion.

So Friday January 31st 2020, turned into a Friday 13th Nightmare for some. There’s no way back to the EU for years and maybe no food coming to our shores unless a trading deal can be arranged in 9 months.

Journalists Boycott No 10

So what happens next? Johnson is keen to obtain a news agenda on his terms; Number 10 needs to keep up the gaslighting… they even have a giant gaslamp outside the front door to remind everyone… So Johnson instructed non-partisan news outlets to be banned from PM briefings. Now we may now get no news at all after journalists, in solidarity, walked out together. It was left to one of Boris Johnson’s aides to ban reporters. “The confrontation took place inside No 10 after Lee Cain, Johnson’s most senior communications adviser, tried to exclude reporters from the Mirror, the i, HuffPost, PoliticsHome, the Independent and others from an official government briefing.” You know what they say, “first they came for the journalists and I said nothing… I don’t know what happened after that!” Was stopping every news report, all part of the plan? Since we can only expect bad news for the next few years…

Transatlantic Aspects

So connecting the dots between what is happening in the UK and the USA: the billionaire class attempting to subvert democracy by promoting toadies and stooges and crippling the election process… what does this mean for the 2020 US Presidental election?

Currently it is not looking good. What exactly that happened in the Iowa Caucus last night? Details are sketchy but this is the Daily Gaslight’s current understanding:

  • Bernie Sanders is a popular DNC front runner. (Read up on the controversal 2016 DNC nomination campaign between Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders)
  • The DNC party leadership want someone less radical/socialist like Jo Biden or Peter Buttigieg
  • Jo Biden (at 25%) can hardly string a sentence together but Peter Buttigieg was confident he would do well in Iowa
  • Buttigigieg had (apparently) funded the development of election software from a company called Shadow (!) which was to be used to present the count at the Iowa Caucus.
  • But the results were delayed
  • With just a few districts announced, Bernie supporters, checking their own canvassing called foul. The Shadow software was underreporting Sanders’ support by 40%! The Sanders team showed their estimates: a lead for Sanders with some 29% of the vote.
  • In the resulting confusion, every candidate announced they were the winner.
  • Twitter was a buzz with anti-Bernie jibes that he had cheated (!) and was encouraging anti-semitism in the party.

So Gaslighting continues… the DNC party leadership seem to have this real grudge against Bernie Sanders and the democratic process… let’s see what happens next in the USA (since we will be getting precious little news from Number 10 by the look of things!)

To tie this news back to the theme of this post: what happens to the UK Trump deal if Bernie wins the Presidential race?

PysOp GE2019

The Previous Daily GasLamp post refered to GE2019 as a PysOp – which stands for Pyschological Operation. So PysOp is a mission conducted by Pyschological Warfare (a little known part of the art of warfare but this is still as old as Sun Tzu.) This post expands upon that statement.

Firstly the reason, why a PysOp was needed was because Jeremy Corbyn together with the Labour party had effectively challenged the Conservatives in the 2017 snap election coming close to knocking them from power. However, Teresa May clung on as PM… she later taunted Corbyn over the desptach box that he’d never become Prime Minister, perhaps alluding to an establishment stitch up. Another election was obviously only another one or two years away. The Conservatives hoped that Brexit would be achieved and would do better against Labour but by October 2019, another Brexit Deadline had been missed.

Meanwhile, the establishment, namely newsmedia, civil service, public schools, intelligence and armed services (although not the legal profession, so much) were not too pleased with Corbyn. The armed forces were using a photo of Corbyn for target practice. The establishment would plan to ensure that Corbyn with his anti-Trump, anti-Israel, anti-nuclear-weapon, anti-war, anti-Royalty policies could never be enabled.

Who could do it?

World leaders in PysOps are the USA, Israel or Russia and these countries all have a vested interested in a Conservative Win in the GE. While the UK also has a PysOps capability, it is probably unlikely that a British military services would be used, but it could be done by other UK organisations… such as the likes of the Institute for Statecraft. To quote wikipedia, their “Integrity Initiative’s twitter account had been used to smear Corbyn and the Labour Party. The Foreign Office minister, Alan Duncan ordered an investigation into the reports and stated “Not only must [anti-Labour attacks by Statecraft] stop, I want to know why on earth it happened in the first place.” MP Chris Williamson argued that it promoted the “denigration of the Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn” and called for an inquiry.

If the Institute for Statecraft was not used then other, equally clandestine, organisations spun off from the Deep State could also be responsible.

What is a PysOp?

The process of a PysOP is well documented and is as follows:

  1. clearly define the mission so that it aligns with national objectives
  2. need a PSYOP estimate of the situation
  3. prepare the plan
  4. media selection
  5. product development
  6. pre-testing – determines the probable impact of the PSYOP on the target audience
  7. production and dissemination of PSYOP material
  8. implementation
  9. post-testing – evaluates audience responses
  10. feedback

So a proposed PysOp for GE2019 could look like the following:

1. Clearly define a plan: rig the election so that the Conservatives Win.

2. PYSOP estimation: the election despite being rigged but must appear to be fair and the mismatch between expectation and rigged result could be explained by propaganda generated both before and after the election.

3. The plan was prepared and tested both re-using the successful Vote Leave strategy enabled through Cambridge Analytica (see other DailyGasLamp articles how this was achieved) and secondly tested out in the Copeland Bye Election

4. Media Selection: everything! All channels to be used to bombard the public with anti-Corbyn propaganda including BBC and social media.

5. Product Development. The basic solution for this PysOp was the development of a solution that provided Situational Awareness of voter intentions. This was the solution used with Vote Leave and just upgraded for GE2019 by Dominic Cummings as described by Dominic Cummings in his blog.

6. Pre-testing. Dominic Cummings describes how pre-testing of social media ads was done on small groups then expanded out and in any case, the approach was successful in Vote Leave. Facebook allowed targeting of ads to just the people that would be most susceptible.

7. Production of PysOp material – besides the usual right wing newspapers – included the supposedly politically neutral BBC that seemed intent on creating the worst character assassination of Corbyn. Many people expressed dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, but when pressed could not be specific about the reasons why although normally pro-terrorist or ant-semitism were mentioned. As an anti-war, anti-racist, anti-zionist campaigner, Corbyn had developed quite a few enemies in the establishment… Others pointed out he did not display traditional military style leadership methods. Corbyn, indeed, led by building consensus and in the process grew the Labour Party to be the largest political party in Europe. This forming another reason why the establishment did not like him.

8. Implementation: there are multiple lines of attack here: Propaganda – full spectrum covergage, targetted ads, sock puppets and bots to retweet and encourage the right behaviour with “voter intention feedback” from automatic AI-based inspection of social media pages of targetted voters.

9. Post-testing. Finally with a complete Big Data view provided complete “situation awareness” allowed the minimum amount of vote rigging… Social Media was used to monitor the campaign and just before the Postal Vote deadline, Dominic Cummings noted that they didn’t have the numbers… so postal vote fraud was required. No doubt exact numbers of how many votes were required to push their candidates over the line (with a small margin for error) was provided for each constituency…

10. Feedback was the election result. The BBC exit poll had it spot on… but hang on… 38% of the the votes were postal vote. If, as Dominic Raab and Laura Kuenssberg mentioned before election day, the postal vote was expected to be mainly Tory… shouldn’t the exit poll be slightly different? Nope. The BBC obviously had all the intell they needed….

Everyone now agrees with the political story that Corbyn was an unpopular politician with unpopular policiies hence he lost the election. Rather than the truth: a fraudulent election fixed by computer analytics fed from illegal use of social media, automation, pyschographics and postal vote rigging. The propaganda fog from the compliant main stream media being so dense that everyone believes the narrative. No-one believes that they have been gas-lighted.

Election Fraud GE2019

No-one seems to be talking about this yet… GE2019 and the use of Social Media Sock Puppets and Psychological Operations, Postal Vote Fraud and Voter Suppression. This wasn’t so much a political event, trading policy ideas on a level playground, but more like a military operation with one side armed to to teeth with tanks and fighter jets with the other with handbags.

Background

The Tories were in a real mess in October 2019 running a minority government. Johnson was goading Corbyn to call for an election. Johnson obviously had a plan for the election and it had nothing to do with policy or a vision of the future for Britain, it was just three words “Get Brexit Done” – whatever that means (as far as I can tell it is just to let Tory Donors off the hook from tax avoidance scams).

The Tories ran a pretty dreadful campaign. Johnson was Boo-ed on many of his public outings and his team were a shambles, offending Greenfeld victims, NHS workers and patients, and dodging any questions regarding climate change or the environment. Johnson was defending a marginal seat with only 4000 odd majority, but did not even attend hustings in his consituency. A similar story can be found in constituencies in the north of England (soon to be won by them in the GE) where there was precious little evidence of a Tory campaign on the ground.

Corbyn was met with huge crowds of supporters, chanting and cheering wherever he went. But this was not reported in the Mainstream Media, prefering, it seems, to attack him personally, and Labour in general, with “weaponised” lines of questioning regarding anti-seminitism (a problem that affected Labour at a rate of 0.01% of its membership). The BBC – supposedly impartial and in “purdah” – went out of its way to edit video to make Johnson look good, covering up on the Jennifer Arcuri scandal, the withholding of the “Russia Report” and the social media manipulations, particulalry the sock puppet accounts, over the boy-on-the-floor in Leeds Hospital. https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/read-this/general-election-2019-leeds-general-infirmary-fake-news-flooding-social-media-explained-1337095. These sock puppet accounts (as reported by the BBC) demonstrated the immense social media capability available to the Tories.

Various commentators noted that the gap between Conservatives and Labour was narrowing mainly because the polls had not accounted for the Youth Quake, dying Brexit voters and Campaign disasters (such as Fridge Gate). There was the issue of Labour voters moving to the Brexit Party but both the LibDems, Brexit Party and Tories had a dreadful campaign and many people expected a shift to Labour and at least a hung parlaiment.

General Election 12th December 2019

So on the day of the General Election, there were extraordinary queues at polling stations in many consituencies: Young Voters coming out in force. But at 10.30pm the exit polls were announced and the BBC was 99% accurate to the actual result… which is rather strange since the postal votes were at an extraordinary high – double the number in 2017 and not counted towards the exit poll. Did the BBC have other data to work with other than the exit poll information?

GE2019 results cf 2017

According to the official figures, while the registered voter population had grown from 46m to 47m, turned out had dropped slightly from 68.7% to 67.3%. These figures seem to be a bit of puzzle… considering not only the Youth Quake, Polling Booth Queues but also the reported doubling of the postal vote from around 16% in 2017 to 32% in 2019 – these figures are still being collated since official figures will not be fully available until Jun 2020.

The official explanation is that former Labour Voters moved to Conservative (and Brexit Party) and while this story has credibility according to these figures, more striking is the move from Labour to LibDem, Green and SNP. Perhaps the real story is how efficient the Tories had optimised their vote in the very unfair First-Past-The-Post election system, allowing them to pick one seat for every 38264 votes while the LibDems were amazingly less efficient moving from 200,000 in 2017 for each seat to 300,000 in 2019. It seems that the Conservatives with only 100,000 or so paid up party members had out-campaigned Labour, the largest political party in Europe with 500,000 party members, through the use of capital-intensive technology.

VICS

Before the EU Referendum, Dominic Cummings had created a system for Vote Leave called the Voter Intentions Collection System (VICS). This is well documented in Dominic Cummings own blog. https://dominiccummings.com/on-the-eu-referendum/ It provides a statistical probability of each and every vote and voter, fed by data sources “conventional and unconventional”.

For Vote Leave this Big Data system was fed from information from facebook: information on 2 billion (yes, 2 billion) people collected by Cambridge Analytica. There is an ongoing case about the fraudulent collection of this data and still further speculation whether this data was available to Dominic Cummings in 2019.

In 2019, Dominic Cummings claimed that voters were persuaded to change their attitudes to people, party and desire to vote by targetted adverts. Facebook allows targetted ads including by location, demographics (age, gender, education, job title), interests, behaviour and connections, include people who are connected to your people or events, or to exclude them. So the Tories had the ability to target people that were likely to be swayed by their ads. Cummings claim they tested the ads on small groups, fine tuned them and then pushed out to larger groups. The ads were largely attack ads against Corbyn or “Get Brexit Done” messages with overtone of racism. The ads were targetted towards football supporters and football supporter mentality… which is largely pretty tribal if not racist…

Sock Puppets

However to really guage voter intention, VICS needs more than just targetting information it needs, feedback and engagement. Social media, particularly facebook, is the tool of choice. Sock Puppet accounts and bots were enabled to do a number of things:

a) identify a person who was likely to vote for a particular party – if confirmed views, would they be voting?

b) identify people who could possibly be infulenced “floating voters”, and if infulenced would they vote?

c) identify people who were unlikely to vote at all

In particular, besides identifying voter’s political view, the sock puppets and bots could re-inforce tribal behaviour and commitment to vote by either “liking” posts, engaging in chit-chat and obtaining such confirmation. As mentioned above, the Tories had demonstrated a massive capability for its sock puppets and bots but it is unlikely that these were directly controlled by Tory Party operatives but either UK Intelligence Services or Foriegn Intelligence Services – the most likely being, not Russia, but USA and Israel who both have massive capability for such “Pyschological Operations“.

IDOX

IDOX systems are used to used to manage Postal Votes in around 80% of UK constituencies. It does not count votes but managing the requests, sending out voter packs, verifying the packs and managing the electoral rolls. This is gold dust info into a system like VICS. So was the data passed deliberately to Tory CCHQ? Maybe not necessary – just hacked – Rabid Tory Peter Lilly was a former director of IDOX – he could have passed on details to people that could then easily hack the IDOX systems. We know for instance that each IDOX installation was separated (so no central database) and I’m sure, “good security controls” but each system was also capable of being connected by wi-fi and/or the internet and so, of course, wide open to any determined organisation to hack into it. (See picture). The Institue of Statecraft for example, would easily be able to achieve this.

Postal Vote Fraud

Various efforts are now in play to investigate the postal vote fraud but this is nothing new. There was a postal vote court case in England in September 2019 and suspected postal vote fraud in the Scottish Referendum For GE2019 early information indicates that both Safe Tory Seats and Marginals won by the Conservative, had high Postal Ballot percentages, double the usual figures.

The VICS data would have indentified those people unlikely to vote. These would be the perfect people to impersonate for postal vote ballot stuffing.

Voter Suppression

Finally there is evidence of voter suppression, particularly of youngsters, people living abroad and new British Citizens, (and there’s more on the way). The evidence for this is available all over Twitter. Another group, confirmed non-Tory voters, could have been identified by VICS data and these voters could have been somehow twarted from voting (by a variety of means).

Situational Awareness

The different methods to achieve the goal, a conservative landslide, would have been diverse in order to stop any one particular method being fully understood and the fraud exposed. All that really was required was “Situational Awareness” – a military term that is now widely used within business – to provide a complete overall picture of progress towards the goal. In the conversative case, this was provided by Dominic Cummings’ Voter Intention Database. Is that system illegal? No… Well, actually it depends on who paid for it and how it was accounted for in campaign finances… and we won’t know that until June 2020. Oh, and if using Social Media Data it probably broke GDPR rules governed by the Information Commissioner Office. (The ICO seems to be very quiet on this matter).

Follow Up

More information will be written up as it becomes available. This blog will be used to store information and links provided for use on social media…

Electoral Law is lagging behind in regulating Big Data and other technological advances that destroy real democracy…

2017 – 13.63m vote Tory…..Hung Parliament

2019 – 13.96m vote Tory…..Landslide victory

Something is not right.