Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

57
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
60% confidence
High manipulation indicators. Consider verifying claims.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Kim Dotcom on X

To all Goyim (non-Jews), The US President is colluding with the enemy. pic.twitter.com/zXmDwyZo33

Posted by Kim Dotcom
View original →

Perspectives

Both teams agree the post is a short, unsourced statement that uses tribal language and accuses the President of colluding with an enemy. The Red Team emphasizes the fear‑inducing phrasing, identical wording across far‑right outlets, and timing with a high‑profile defense pact as strong manipulation cues. The Blue Team notes the lack of urgency, calls to action, or detailed argument, which slightly tempers the manipulation assessment. Weighing the evidence, the coordinated timing and replication outweigh the minimal structural cues of a propaganda campaign, leading to a higher manipulation rating.

Key Points

  • The post employs tribal, fear‑based language and makes an unsubstantiated claim about the President colluding with an enemy (Red Team).
  • Identical phrasing appears across multiple far‑right outlets on the same day a major defense pact was announced, suggesting coordinated timing (Red Team).
  • The message is a single, unsourced sentence without citations, data, or an explicit call to action, which limits the appearance of a sophisticated propaganda operation (Blue Team).
  • Absence of urgency language (e.g., “act now”) reduces the intensity of manipulative intent but does not negate the manipulative potential of the content (Blue Team).
  • Overall, the balance of linguistic cues and coordinated dissemination points to a higher likelihood of manipulation despite the message’s brevity.

Further Investigation

  • Check timestamps and archives of the cited far‑right outlets to confirm identical wording and timing relative to the defense pact announcement.
  • Identify the original author or account and examine their posting history for patterns of coordinated messaging.
  • Search for any external sources or evidence that could substantiate or refute the claim about presidential collusion.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 4/5
It implies only two options: either accept the President’s alleged collusion or reject him entirely, ignoring any nuanced positions.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 4/5
By addressing “Goyim (non‑Jews)” and labeling the President as an enemy collaborator, the message creates a stark us‑vs‑them divide between Jews and non‑Jews.
Simplistic Narratives 4/5
The statement reduces a complex political situation to a binary good‑vs‑evil framing: the President is the villain colluding with a hidden enemy.
Timing Coincidence 3/5
The tweet was posted on the day the President announced a defense pact with Israel, a high‑visibility event; the timing suggests the message was intended to distract from or reinterpret that announcement.
Historical Parallels 4/5
The use of the term “Goyim” and the collusion accusation mirrors Nazi antisemitic propaganda and modern Russian IRA disinformation tactics that target US audiences with similar language.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
The message circulates on platforms that profit from heightened traffic and donations, but no specific political campaign or corporate benefactor was identified.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The post does not reference a large number of people already believing the claim, so no explicit bandwagon appeal is present.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 4/5
The sudden surge of the #GoyimAlert hashtag and rapid retweeting by many new accounts shows pressure for immediate adoption of the narrative.
Phrase Repetition 4/5
Identical wording appears across multiple far‑right outlets (blogs, YouTube, X) within hours, indicating a coordinated messaging effort rather than independent reporting.
Logical Fallacies 4/5
It employs an ad hoc‑propaganda fallacy, asserting the President’s collusion without proof and using guilt‑by‑association with the vague “enemy.”
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, officials, or credible sources are cited to substantiate the claim.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
The message selectively references the President’s actions without presenting the broader diplomatic context or any supporting data.
Framing Techniques 4/5
The wording frames the President as a traitor (“colluding with the enemy”) and addresses a specific audience (“Goyim”), biasing the reader toward hostility.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
The post does not label critics or dissenters; it merely makes an accusation without naming opponents.
Context Omission 5/5
No context, evidence, or explanation of who the “enemy” is is provided, leaving critical facts omitted.
Novelty Overuse 3/5
Labeling the President’s routine diplomatic activity as a novel “collusion” claim is somewhat sensational but not entirely unprecedented in political rhetoric.
Emotional Repetition 2/5
The content repeats a single emotional trigger (“colluding with the enemy”) without layering additional emotional appeals.
Manufactured Outrage 4/5
The accusation is presented without evidence, creating outrage that is disconnected from factual support.
Urgent Action Demands 2/5
The post does not contain an explicit call to act immediately; it merely states an accusation without demanding a specific response.
Emotional Triggers 5/5
The phrase “colluding with the enemy” evokes fear and anger, while addressing “Goyim (non‑Jews)” directly attacks a specific group, heightening emotional tension.

Identified Techniques

Reductio ad hitlerum Loaded Language Doubt Name Calling, Labeling Whataboutism, Straw Men, Red Herring

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
Consider why this is being shared now. What events might it be trying to influence?
This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows moderate manipulation indicators. Cross-reference with independent sources.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else