by: anonymous coward
date: 2002-01-07 20:50:19
--
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David
Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of
dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth
when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly,
includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with
respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime
involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there
will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those
seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There
are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as
revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common
traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in
identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits
the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely
they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People
can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing
disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.
A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will
evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links
are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need
further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one
or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not
necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or
if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key)
the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either
strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these
links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these
evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or
broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative
solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and
slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of
victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot
break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of
truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be
forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid
an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no
shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain,
or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the
rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can
become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue,
it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the
disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure
(real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of
intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those
who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent
rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which
would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they
must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in
the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and
the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working
together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in
this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against
such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven
tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT
BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the
players themselves understand the rules of the game.
This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you
saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world
counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards,
who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on
behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest
of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since
the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult
to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's
Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.
For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid
discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by
truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make
select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a
break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to
be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of
questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that
fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth,
regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to
testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly
exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie
renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to
stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of
questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on
verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does
the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in
the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts
or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their
part in the matter will merely be supportive.
Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as
newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups,
the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the
principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals
to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular
position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time.
People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of
pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are
critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if
their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another
role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage
the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible
should any possible future confrontation in more public forums
result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo
types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards"
of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that
those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the
same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative
writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and
unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously
stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.
So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet
news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is
being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare
operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the
later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you
astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers)
generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other
terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either
way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and
seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application.
Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some
paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known
historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be
overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple
tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or
informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers
will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the
complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have
reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon
request (see permissions statement at end):
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation)
rules are generally not directly within the ability of the
traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used
more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning
level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you
know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure,
news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you
never have to deal with the issues.
Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby)
when CIA agent Marita Lorenz 'confession' testimony regarding CIA
direct participation in the planning and assassination of John
Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt
lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby's
newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day
and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's remarkable book,
Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.
Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware
of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such
attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely
complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire
Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively
certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from
among those having intelligence community ties.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and
instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as
being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is
also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
Example: 'How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were
murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best
trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal
requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President
could want to appoint.'
Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation
tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you
need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and
you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to
charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the
issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and
indignant)?
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all
charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild
accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may
work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent
press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are
through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material
with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a
'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
'You can't prove his material was legitimately from French
Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that
flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he
really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating
around the Internet for months.'
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single
FBI interview statement to media and a similar statement by a
Congressman, neither of which had actually seen Pierre's document.
As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this
matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is
natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a
negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the
face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are
biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further,
to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not
founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before
accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why
do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics
(rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your
opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect
of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them
in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and
fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that
spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight
800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified
as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: 'If these
images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don't exist,
and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls
flat.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible
and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has
not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To
produce them would violate national security with respect to
intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should
know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such
disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?'
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also
known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other
methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents
with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals',
'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of
gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Example: 'You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher,
Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know
your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That
certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing
conspiracy theory.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the
basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media
source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before
mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of
silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding
slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges
against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the
issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address
the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack
opponents with name calling and ridicule)?'
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your
opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an
answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works
extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without
having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any
subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
Example: ''This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics
come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black
helicopters.' Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't
seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful
dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to
emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure
with these matters. If you do not like reading 'this crap', why do
you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such
discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?'
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken
to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda
or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser
on the defensive.
Example: 'With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks
like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or
his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence
that this is so. If you think what has been presented are 'lies',
why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question
motives)?'
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and
'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why
or citing sources.
'You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic
considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally,
for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of
souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual
450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined
BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive
shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has
ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained
to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China
in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm
not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American
pilots.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to
provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite
sources. You simply cite 'Jane's-like' information to make us think
you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address
the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke
authority)?'
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is
offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any
credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a
point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum
effect.
Example: 'Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic.
Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try
again.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while
others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no
trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues
by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?'
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the
straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already
easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the
matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have
your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early
on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges,
regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be
associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a
rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better
where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
Example: 'Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB
findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down
at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't
revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years
ago.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if
new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address
the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 -
associate charges with old news)?'
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor
matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made --
but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out
of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't
so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even
publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already
'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and
respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without
addressing more serious issues.
Example: 'Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time
to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of
CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so
concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now
believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be
used.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an
attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public
Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with
the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so
much so that we are to ignore more important matters being
discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back
positions)?'
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of
events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and
events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes
those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more
quickly without having to address the actual issues.
Example: 'I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered
since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would
have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that
went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would
have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA,
the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and
on. It's hopeless. Give it up.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring
to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary.
You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address
the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas
have no solution)?'
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by
reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
Example: 'The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market
where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story
-- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any
evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing,
they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't
reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or
shut up.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported
CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at
a courtroom testimony 'confession' by CIA operative Marita Lorenz in
a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only
told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story
of the Century, but they didn't print it, did they? Why do you
refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?'
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring
opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works
best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent
as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it
planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and
why?'
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter
in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any
evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any
alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth,
can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use
of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative
thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
Example: 'The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a
catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to
explode.'
Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by
this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the
Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media
blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded,
disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even though
today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now
understand it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works
best may actually be to cite the Magic Bullet. 'You are avoiding the
issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of
facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren
Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented.
You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of
evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact,
actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why
do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 15 - fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?'
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not
fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
Example: 'You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was
faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately
placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't
you accept the Police reports?' This is a good ploy, since the
dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches
too long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife
demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could
view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.
Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished
materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter,
particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other
criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used
against the discussion, you can respond... 'You are avoiding the
issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the
matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters
such as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of
evidence. The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary
allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use
of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and
witnesses)?'
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other
ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with
abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to
a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with
companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize
the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
Example: 'There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering
through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton
knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an
attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a
disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with
nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something
to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.' Assistant's
response. 'You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong
with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping
the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands
on...' One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice,
to jump in defensively on that one...
Proper response: 'You are both avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by
attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic
-- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly
believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion,
as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate
politics NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?'
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do
anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into
emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and
overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less
coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue,
you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive
they are to criticism.'
Example: 'You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you
such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is
cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only
justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.' After a
drawing an emotional response: 'Ohhh... I do seem to have touched a
sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for
you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic
Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional
help...'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without
discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute
which defeats my argument, let's hear it -- preferably without snide
and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking
so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all
you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of
such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and
goad opponents)?'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is
perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the
material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the
opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it
may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld,
such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing
issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be
critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are
acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other
authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Example: 'All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of
witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage
from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for
the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven,
reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van
Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire
reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us
anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you
allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB,
Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York
Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical
Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy
divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including
Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative
team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses
this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying
150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Then you demand us to produce
evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by
FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to
tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be
damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs
be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern
here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand
impossible proofs)?'
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues
designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations --
as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution.
This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for
the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the
fabrications.
Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white
Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the
assassination. This was a handy 'confession', since Jack and Earl
were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is
now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination
(see below.)
Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you
see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is
known today than earlier in time... 'You are avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been
designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative
Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs.
Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and
others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the
assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was
a coconspirator whose 'Solidarist confession' was meant to sidetrack
any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you
refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 20 - false evidence)?'
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered
investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.
Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret
when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting
attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and
that the evidence is sealed as unavailable to subsequent
investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can
be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied
to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain
charges when seeking to frame a victim.
Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who
violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law,
denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied
the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and
relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear,
evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint
conclusions other than facts actually suggested.
Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this
tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application,
particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened
locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been
called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance
that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts
which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done
the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such
as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as
CIA's METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma
Grand Jury process, by they way.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s),
author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or
testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must
actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family
Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall
into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership
include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read
The Professional Paranoid or Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by
Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that
(in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations
focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is
no such thing as Mind Control.
Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in
the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in
the opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this
tactic.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be
working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger
news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing
trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence
community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other
skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the
Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored
murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever
disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing
government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?)
to talk about -- or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports
fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on
the whole gun control thing?
Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public
debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the
'news flap' or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your
opponents.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider
removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so
that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by
their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their
character by release of blackmail information, or merely by
destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their
health.
Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire
theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to
intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be
subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of
failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up
charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust
them.
Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think
yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight
regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy
which will point to your opponents in the event of any
unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence
information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid
dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for
suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to
cave in or run (same thing.)
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly
illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the
issues, vacate the kitchen.
Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you
don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the
way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.
Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this
method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it
was by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the
most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end,
you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more
of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide
constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or
credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other.
Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further
justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully,
either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key
opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a
commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will
shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat
coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular
public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic
is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or
elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and
complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of
frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to
become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for
'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way
believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold
such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might
think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every
topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one
might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their
actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and
an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even
in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely
stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how
condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become
emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo
artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if
responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity
throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble
maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to
pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional
communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to
'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as
they might be able in a real face-to-face
conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and
indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an
emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of
criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will
generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any
adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that
game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others
think might seek to improve their communications style, substance,
and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which
betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak,
in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory
information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance,
one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor
communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having
only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots
who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a
particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to
News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this
can be seen to work, especially when the government or other
empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG
posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE
response. The government and other empowered players can afford to
pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some
damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT -
FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards
truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a
disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will
usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down
team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even
enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain
of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be
seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours
delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the
targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more
important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious
truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my
unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:
Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled
lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the
veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of
oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil.
God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to
such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits
require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we
shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
by H. Michael Sweeney (HMS@proparanoid.com)
copyright (c) 1997, 2000, 2001 All rights reserved (Edited June 2001)
Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non
commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and
with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government
related info, visit the Author's Web site:
http://www.proparanoid.com
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου