Ok, story time. I don’t usually get into this stuff but I haven’t seen it called out enough: You’re being tricked into fighting the wrong side. If you’re politically active online there’s a good chance you’re a victim of social engineering designed to divide and conquer.

It’s a huge shadow business that has accelerated in the past 5 years. It’s more obvious than you’d think, but when tensions are at a fever pitch as they are now it sometimes isn’t easy to see what’s right in front of you.

Did you ever wonder how someone you’ve never heard of is suddenly an influential figure overnight? Verified? Interviewed on national TV? rt’d by known bigger names? They might have lots of “hot takes” about the current political climate that goes against what you’d expect.

Let’s take it back to the 90s-00s boyband era. It didn’t take long for it to come out that most groups were mass produced by big recording studios. Members were scouted more for marketability than talent, songs were written for them, backstories fabricated or embellished, etc.

It was all an illusion. It was harmless though. The music was fun, the singers were eye catching, it was entertainment.

Today that system is used for a more insidious purpose.

PACs are funding media groups, often shell companies or subsidiaries, to scout talent.

The first and most marketable type are the minorities with little to no previous public presence. They can be molded into the ideal mouthpiece.

Those with journalism backgrounds are front of the line as it gives them more relevancy that they are “fact oriented”. Younger = better

This “talent” starts out as a larval “provocateur”. They’re given loose scripts and talking points to parrot as bait online. Depending on their success getting impressions they are given better contracts and (always bound by NDAs).

Why are the scripts “loose” if these companies want to present a good image?

Plausible deniability is one reason, but judging talent’s creativity is key. They realize not every moment can be scripted when confronted like in an interview.

The ability to adlib while staying on message is what makes them marketable beyond image. This was a certain gay provocateur’s downfall a few years ago (who was a gen1 prototype btw). They strayed too far off script when adlibbing and their marketability fell to zero.

Money, fame, and power can affect the judgment of the best of us, but these companies aren't looking for conviction. They want those who are desperate, hungry, and willing to do whatever is asked for the next paycheck. The inflated ego just gives a more personal motivation.

How is the illusion cast beyond a script?

Bots. There are plenty of sites that can estimate fake followers to see for yourself. Many of these “provocateurs” start under 5k on their own and the companies supply a steady bot army to make it appear as if they are gaining traction.

Those who interact with them negatively are the target audience. It gives them relevancy. This draws the attention of organic followers who are anti-“you”. This is where they are judged as being marketable or not. (DON'T FEED THE TROLLS)

While the media companies in direct contact with the talent may be small, their network of influence is vast. They will be boosted by other talent that has already moved up the ladder and be booked for interviews on blogs and smaller online news orgs.

Talent will given a website maintained by social media managers. They will be promised a book deal in contract and given a portion of merchandise sales as further incentive. Eventually they will be verified and moved up to national TV appearances.

The larval provocateur becomes the “political analyst” with literally no other experience. The most successful will eventually become the political pundit, maybe given their own segment on a politically-aligned opinion show...

The most important part to take from this is their need for “impressions” online to start. It may seem like they are pandering to their base, but their audience is those who come to attack or cancel them.

Divide and conquer is the goal lately.

A transphobic gay talent (who might not even be gay) seeks to fragment the community into weaker parts, just as a racist gay talent would cause a schism in a progressive civil rights alliance.

Once you start infighting you’ve taken the bait. You’re fighting FOR the other side.

Of course there will always be differing opinions in any group, but they use the false equivalence that hateful/oppressive ideals are just harmless opinions. One of the key script points to build animosity is to claim you aren't allowed to think for yourselves.

The provocateur's primary goal is to plant that the seed of animosity. It is a similar tactic, different venue, as white supremacists infiltrating peaceful BLM protests to frame them for violence.

I’m not saying everyone like this is on the payroll of these media companies btw, just the “rising stars” we keep seeing crop up.

For my own personal and legal reasons I’m not going to be naming media companies, etc. The information is out there and surprisingly easy to track.

Take a look at @CaseyExplosion ’s great thread from today of the LGB* Alliance and this article for starters: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/03/lgb-alliance-gary-powell-center-bioethics-culture-alliance-defending-freedom-anti-lgbt/

I should also mention that “aspiring talent” isn’t always unknowns. Have you noticed the peculiar demographic of former celebrities, fallen to d-list and out of work for decades, that are suddenly hot on the political beat?

The old path used to be for them to only get work doing TV commercials since their agents couldn’t get them better gigs anymore. Now they get a second chance at relevancy and better money all from their keyboard. (Of course scouts know to look for those with certain alignments.)