April 30, 2011

YouTube Guerilla Tactics

Yesterday I uploaded some videos I had compiled from assorted clips, and what seems to be a common occurrence these days and what's been happening for weeks now is that the video quickly receives a number of 'dislikes.' The person(s) doing this are specifically targeting Zeitgeist members, for the simple reason in that they dislike the information presented by the Zeitgeist Movement. And by the way, 'we' advocate applying the scientific method for social concern. Nothing outlandish really. Yet some people feel so threatened apparently that they have to put a negative spin on everything that is forwarded. I myself am by no means the only person who gets this treatment.

As you can see in the screenshot above there's also something highly unusual going on. My video had in fact only gotten 3 views when I captured that image, but the number of 'dislikes' already reached 13. That's a clear indication someone is using some additional software that creates multiple votes. That's an escalation if you ask me in how far some people are willing to go. People are not just voting a single time but use different accounts to vote multiple times or have downloaded software to that effect. If that doesn't sum up YouTube guerilla tactics I don't know what will. Like I mentioned before, many people who upload material that promotes the Zeitgeist Movement get the same treatment.

What's also fascinating is that some segments of society actually get instructed to vote down certain material. In this video (filmed in secrecy) it becomes readily apparent that young members of the Tea Party at a lecture are advised to vote down anything that's too progressive or otherwise doesn't fit their ideology. Highly unorthodox and outright undemocratic if you ask me. I thought the Tea Party stood for freedom and democracy, maybe they have another interpretation? What I've noticed on YouTube is that a number of critics of the Zeitgeist Movement are also supporters of the Tea Party Movement. Is there a correlation?

What I found out about the YouTube "troll" responsible for all the dislikes is that this person is from Florida. One video of mine that rarely got any views got the same treatment. YouTube allows you to see the data (to some extent) of who's viewing your videos and where they are from. When the dislikes start appearing and the troll is the only one who visited the video you get something like in the picture above. A clear indication of where this person is from.

Another hint is mannerism or behavior. There are only a couple of Zeitgeist critics (that I know) who are from Florida and one person by the YouTube handle of 'MarioBrothaYT' (Mario Rodriguez) fits the bill right on when it comes to sociopathic behavior. He runs a blog here, filled with the most asinine comments a person can come up with. By far the most probable candidate responsible for the YouTube guerilla style warfare. You would almost feel sorry for such a misguided person were it not for the mayhem he creates.


New said...

You guys don't "advocate applying the scientific method for social concern." You guys advocate eliminating money so that some unelected group of people will make all your purchasing decisions instead of you making them for yourself.

One consequence of that will be an end to stylish homes with stylish furniture. They will be replaced with those ghetto-looking concrete igloos and molded furniture because, as Jacque puts it, they are more efficient to build and ornamentation like columns on a home facade are a waste of resources!

That is not science, that is the delusion of a megalomaniac.

Since it is impossible to make budgeting decisions without money and since the budgeting decisions for everyone is different and cannot be made by a central planner and since people value style, the idea you guys propose is idiotic and will never work.

Ed V. said...

Yeah, you simply don't wanna change those housing styles in third world countries. Style is meant to be kept, right?

New said...

It doesn't matter whether the style is old or new. The point is that with money you get to buy any style you want, you are not forced to live in the central computer approved igloo.

With money, if you want to spend your fair share of resources on ornamentation because you value style, you can get ornamentation.

Without money, a central authority will have to dictate everything you are given whether you like it or not. And there is not benefit to switching to that type of system.

Ed V. said...

You know New, your whole reasoning smacks of selfishness and fear projection. I've seen these arguments over and over again. What about my iPod, what if I want to eat 10 hamburgers, what if I want a big house?

Efficiency, sustainability, the necessities of life are overshadowed by the concept of: 'What can I get?' There are human needs and there are human wants. And these are totally different concepts. Human needs are universal and human wants are extremely plethoric. A person can want a garden the size of Texas but if everyone wants that you have a problem simply because there isn't enough room. You have to ask yourself, how reasonable is my 'want?'

For real-life example of the concept you discuss you only have to look at the present U.S. society. 2 million people incarcerated, millions homeless and living in tent camps, food stamps even for the lower middle class. That is a direct consequence of a society based on money and what people 'want.' And with the 14 trillion dollar public debt, which no one 'wants' to pay for apparently, it's going to get worse and worse.

If I was you I would be more concerned about what my system produces and not a RBE model which is still on the drawing board. But then again I'm not the one in denial.

New said...

"your whole reasoning smacks of selfishness"

So you want to abandon money which currently allows me to make all my own choices for a system where I no longer make those choices because making my own choices is selfish!?! Who gets harmed by me spending my own money?

"A person can want a garden the size of Texas but if everyone wants that you have a problem simply because there isn't enough room. You have to ask yourself, how reasonable is my 'want?'"

Right, that is why you need money! People do not know how much they can have. That is why you have to assign a cost to everything you produce and give people a budget to work within.

Without money, it is impossible for anyone to know whether what someone is demanding is reasonable and people will wind up demanding far more than the economy can produce.

People are only going to request a garden the size of Texas in your system! You just made an argument against your own system! People wouldn't do that if you used money because nobody can afford it.

"That is a direct consequence of a society based on money"

That has nothing to do with using money! How would a person become homeless in an RBE if you used money and paid everyone a fair income?

Poverty is a result of the LACK of money. The solution to poverty is to give poor people money, not to eliminate the entire world of money!

"a RBE model which is still on the drawing board"

And after 70 years of drawing up his RBE idea, Jacque still has yet to figure out how you get enough volunteers to do the hundreds of millions of jobs you cannot automate and how specifically everything will be rationed.

That is because it is impossible to do without money. Eliminating money just causes insurmountable problems, it doesn't help or solve anything.

You will not get more workers when you eliminate money and stop paying people, you will get less workers. You will not be able to better ration resources when you eliminate money, you will make rationing impossible. And consumers will not get a greater control over how the economy is meeting their unique individual interests, they will be given no control.

Ed V. said...

We have a phrase here in Holland for right wing political parties. "Every man for himself and God for us all."