Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation
"Various types of belief can be
implanted in many people after brain function has been deliberately disturbed by
accidentally or deliberately induced fear, anger or excitement. Of the results
caused by such disturbances, the most common one is temporarily impaired
judgement and heightened suggestibility. Its various group manifestations are
sometimes classed under the heading of "herd instinct" , and appear most
spectacularly in war time, during severe epidemics, and in all similar
periods of common, which increase anxiety and so individual or mass
suggestibility." Dr William Sargant, a psychiatrist at the Tavistock
Institute, in his 1957 book, Battle For The Mind.
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
by H. Michael Sweeney
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.
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
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
Become incredulous and indignant
Create rumor mongers
Use a straw man
Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
Hit and Run
Question motives
Invoke authority
Play Dumb
Associate opponent charges with old news
Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
Enigmas have no solution
Alice in Wonderland Logic
Demand complete solutions
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
Vanish evidence and witnesses
Change the subject
Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
False evidence
Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
Manufacture a new truth
Create bigger distractions
Silence critics
Vanish
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
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.
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.
Example: 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.
Example: '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 Lornez 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 here 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 facts 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 an 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 Phsychic 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
by H. Michael Sweeney <HMS@proparanoid.com>
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(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.
by H. Michael Sweeney <HMS@proparanoid.com>
Snail: PO Box 1941, Clackamas, OR 97015
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
copyright (c) 1997, 2000, 2001 All rights reserved (Edited June 2001)