UKH

/ Brexit: The Uncivil War

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
what the hex on 09 Jan 2019

Who saw this?

From the epilogue...

“Dominic Cummings delivered an estimated one billion targeted adverts to voters through AggregateIQ in the lead up to the Referendum.

Arron Banks admitted the Leave.EU also hired a data firm specialising in the target of voters – Cambridge Analytica. He has since denied giving them paid work.

Both AggregateIQ and Cambridge Analytica are linked to billionaire businessman Robert Mercer who went on to become the largest donor to the election campaign of President Donald Trump.

In 2018, the Electoral Commission found the Vote Leave campaign guilty of breaking Electoral Law. Leave.EU were subsequently referred to the National Crime Agency for investigation into the breaches of Electoral Law.

The story continues to unfold.”

subtle on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to what the hex:

> Who saw this?

Not me.

 

what the hex on 09 Jan 2019
Simon Caldwell - on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to what the hex:

Very thought provoking. Should be required viewing for anyone who wants another referendum.

Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to subtle:

I'll have to confess that I find your kind of reply one of the weirdest on the social media. Because I don't know what you're wanting to say, and why you're bothering to say it. Formula:

QU: Who has done X,Y or Z?

ANS: Not me.

 

what the hex on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill.

subtle on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I'll have to confess that I find your kind of reply one of the weirdest on the social media. Because I don't know what you're wanting to say, and why you're bothering to say it. Formula:

> QU: Who has done X,Y or Z?

> ANS: Not me.

A question was asked, I gave an answer - what do you not understand?

Post edited at 16:21
what the hex on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I think he was highlighting the banality of my question. Which is fair enough, although I just thought people should see this film.

wercat on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to subtle:

portrayal of informationwar at it's hottest, no longer just in Russia but here too.  Manipulated alleged democracy.

This forum is part of infowar, there are active agents here

Post edited at 16:43
what the hex on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to wercat:

> This forum is part of infowar, there are active agents here

I'd be interested to know; what have they ever done on grit?

Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to what the hex:

> I think he was highlighting the banality of my question. Which is fair enough, although I just thought people should see this film.

Well, your question couldn't have (literally) been 'Who saw this?' because it's like saying 'Who's seen the Northern Lights?' It can be answered truthfully but it doesn't get us anywhere. What your question implied was a fuller question: 'Who's seen so-and-so and has something interesting to say as a result?' Which is not banal.

Post edited at 17:20
Robert Durran - on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> Very thought provoking. Should be required viewing for anyone who wants another referendum.

Why?  Do you think it will reinforce their wish for a second referendum or the opposite?

Minneconjou Sioux on 09 Jan 2019
Stichtplate on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to wercat:

> This forum is part of infowar, there are active agents here

Ooo!....who'd you reckon? Do tell.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

Me..!

<cackles evilly>

...

aw crap, did I type that out loud...?

 

 

wercat on 09 Jan 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

I think you're more than capable of answering that question for yourself

Simon Caldwell - on 10 Jan 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Why?  Do you think it will reinforce their wish for a second referendum or the opposite?

Neither probably, but it should make people question the commonly-held assumption that the result of a new vote would be Remain. 

wercat on 10 Jan 2019
In reply to what the hex:

Watching it I came to think of the difference between the two campaigns as being like the difference between the French/British in 1940 and the Germans.  New tactics and methods/doctrine  cutting through defenders who were expecting an entirely different war.   What the Americans named blitzkrieg was one where you certainly used overwhelming force to achieve a limited objective but where the real aim was to penetrate inside the enemy by flexibly responding to weak points and concentrating force where a result could be achieved, to surround and isolate while the enemy was expecting conventional set piece manoeuvres and battles.

The Remain "campaign" it seemed to me never really got going and was generalled by some hollow (with respect to commitment) characters including Corbyn using weapons and tactics that had not changed much through the ages when in fact they faced an entirely different enemy who was fighting a different war, perhaps Blitzinfokrieg

You don't have to tell the truth or win set piece factual debates as your efforts are diverted and concentrated to bypass and infiltrate and press home where they tell unhappy people disinformation they want to hear, pathfinding through data and algorithm

It should be required watching for politicians too

It is Democracy that has lost this round in the information war, and the self-appointed victors refer to the defeat of democracy as the New Will of the People

here endeth the lesson, rant rant

Post edited at 10:59
tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Jan 2019
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> > Why?  Do you think it will reinforce their wish for a second referendum or the opposite?

> Neither probably, but it should make people question the commonly-held assumption that the result of a new vote would be Remain. 

It should favour Remain because if a lot of the backing going into Vote Leave was US donors using the EU referendum as a beta test for the techniques they intended to use to influence the US election they don't have a reason to spend that amount of money again.

Also key people involved in 2016 Vote Leave/ Trump are lying low due to ongoing criminal investigations, some of the companies doing it for them have been shut down and the social media firms are more cautious.

The other thing is that immigration into the EU from the middle east is down 92% since 2016: Vote Leave would need another convenient immigration crisis to play that card again.

Also a bunch of old Leave voters have died and been replaced by younger Remain voters since 2016.

Leave's only chance is to force the country to do something irreversible before the trends which have turned against them push the decision the other way.   If Corbyn wasn't such a d*ck we'd be out of this by now.

Post edited at 11:07
Simon Caldwell - on 10 Jan 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> The other thing is that immigration into the EU from the middle east is down 92% since 2016: Vote Leave would need another convenient immigration crisis to play that card again.

Why would they need a real crisis? They could just invent one - like last time. There was never any realistic prospect of Turkey even joining the EU, let alone their entire population moving to the UK. But people believed it, and continue to believe it.

 

> It should favour Remain because (things)...

The last one should also have favoured remain - but for various reasons (not least complacency) they blew it.

Post edited at 11:15

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.