Disinformation & Misinformation
Disinformation is spread deliberately by infiltration groups for a variety of reasons, many of which are described in the article below. Disinformation is spread with the deliberate motive to misinform, mislead, distract, discredit, neutralize, intercept, encapsulate, or any of a variety of tactics meant to prevent the real truth from ever surfacing.
Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread unintentionally. It is distinguished from disinformation by motive in that misinformation is simply erroneous, while disinformation, in contrast, is intended to mislead.
Adam Makkai proposes the distinction between misinformation and disinformation to be a defining characteristic of idioms in the English language. An utterance is only idiomatic if it involves disinformation, where the listener can decode the utterance in a logical, and lexically correct, yet erroneous way. Where the listener simply decodes the lexemes incorrectly, the utterance is simply misinformation, and not idiomatic.
^ Adam Makkai (1970). "Statistical Aspects of Phrasal Verb Idioms in Modern English". Proceedings of the Xth international congress of linguists, Bucharest, 1967. pp. 969–972.
Poisoning the Well
Placing lies alongside the truth, in order to discredit the truth by association. Your mark will pick up and pass on the disinfo alongside the real information you wish to disguise or conceal, thereby discrediting himself and any real information he may have disclosed.
Well poisoning muddies the water, and makes the facts harder to resolve.
The Red Herring - False Lead
The term "Red Herring" comes from a practice of dragging a herring along the ground to create a false scent trail. "Red Herrings" refer to a specific type of diversionary tactic whereby a false trail or lead is created to send the dogs (or your mark) chasing a different scent than they were originally after.
Here is what Wikipedia says about the Red Herring:
The red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party's position, the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a red herring may be intentional, or unintentional; it does not necessarily mean a conscious intent to mislead.
The expression is mainly used to assert that an argument is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic.
Bait & Switch
Method: A "Bait & Switch" in counter-intelligence, is different than the more commonly known Bait & Switch tactic of Retail Fraud. In counter-intelligence, a Bait & Switch is when fake documents are substituted for real documents, in order to discredit the real ones if they are ever released later in the future. The real documents will be discredited by association with the fake ones.
Example: Fake documents were released to CBS's 60 Minutes depicting George W. Bush's tarnished National Guard record. The documents were soon proven fakes, and later when the real documents came out, they received little attention because of the negative association with the fake documents.
The Killian documents controversy (also referred to as Memogate, Rathergate or Rathergate) involved six documents critical of President George W. Bush's service in the Air National Guard in 1972-73. Four of these documents were presented as authentic in a 60 Minutes Wednesday broadcast aired by CBS on September 8, 2004, less than two months before the 2004 Presidential Election, but it was later found that CBS had failed to authenticate the documents. Subsequently, several typewriter and typography experts concluded the documents are blatant forgeries, as have most media sources. No forensic document examiners or typography experts have authenticated the documents, and this may not be technically possible without original documents. The provider of the documents, Lt. Col. Bill Burkett, claims to have burned the originals after faxing copies to CBS.
CBS News producer Mary Mapes obtained the copied documents from Burkett, a former officer in the Texas Army National Guard, while pursuing a story about the George W. Bush military service controversy. The papers, purportedly made by Bush's commander, the late Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, included criticisms of Bush's service in the Guard during the 1970s. In the 60 Minutes segment, anchor Dan Rather stated: "We are told [the documents] were taken from Lieutenant Colonel Killian's personal files" and incorrectly asserted that "the material" had been authenticated by experts retained by CBS.
The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media. Although CBS and Rather defended the authenticity and usage of the documents for a two-week period, continued scrutiny from other news organizations and independent analysis of the documents obtained by USA Today and CBS raised questions about their validity and led to a public repudiation on September 20, 2004. Rather stated, "if I knew then what I know now, I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question," and CBS News President Andrew Heyward said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
Several months later, a CBS-appointed panel led by Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi criticized both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath. CBS fired producer Mary Mapes, several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate them and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."
The Insider Strawman aka The Plant
Method: Demonize activists or other messengers of truth by having one of your guys pose as a member of the target group, then have your plant disseminate false information or take actions which will discredit or demonize the target group by association.
In the documentary "Promise Land" it depicts Gas fracking companies using fake environmentalists, in order to discredit the real environmentalists by false association,
essentially "vaccinating" them against environmentalist truth. Although the fracking and oil companies strongly deny using fake environmentalists, you've gotten to admit, that it's a pretty sly technique.
The Mockumentary / Parody
Method: Similar to the "pseudo" gang method (as described on my CoIntelPro page) but the target is a specific video documentary or movie, that you wish to discredit, demonize, marginalize, well-poison, and what have you.
Example: After "Loose Change" recieved over a million views on Google Video back in 2005, a series of copy-cat mockumentary conspiracy films were produced called "September Clues" which used similar music and narration to the loose change style and "unfastened coins" which alleged a conspiracy to sink the Titanic. September Clues spread the widely disproven and discredited "No Planes" theory, this was followed by a series of radio and television hit pieces on 9/11 Truth which brought disinformation agents onto shows posing as 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, forward absurd theories and claims, and then be completely ripped apart like the straw-men they were set up to be, and
The impression to the public will be that ALL 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe that no planes hit the towers, and other such ridiculous things... The end.
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by
H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000)
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
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
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 to)
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 evaluations... 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 and 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 ofevidence 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 ledastray 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.
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 anydiscussion 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
latter 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.[examples & response- http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
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.
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
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative
thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not
fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
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.
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.'
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.
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
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the
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 and 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
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.
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.
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 theircharacter by release of blackmail information,
or merely by destroying them financially,
emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
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. .
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:
The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies, Part One
This posting has been shared in many places on the Internet this past month, many of them sites such as Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. I tried to find the name of the author or issuing organization, but thus far have had no luck, but believe it originated at Cryptome http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
Not all of the techniques would apply in a forum such as ours. It is interesting in a more general sense to understand techniques that a hostile 'visitor' may utilize to cause chaos, particularly on a controversial blog posting. There even may be techniques you will find useful in your own internet travels.
This is only the first part of a rather long document. These are the subjects that are covered in the complete document:
· COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of an internet forum
· Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
· Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
· How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
· Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of an internet forum
There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of an internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of an ‘uncontrolled forum.’
Technique #1 – ‘FORUM SLIDING’
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum – it can be quickly removed from public view by ‘forum sliding.’ In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to ‘age.’ Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a ‘forum slide.’ The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a ‘forum slide’ and ‘flush’ the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then ‘replying’ to prepositioned postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting ‘slides’ down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
Technique #2 – ‘CONSENSUS CRACKING’
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time is ‘consensus cracking.’ To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made – but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favor is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger ‘evidence’ or disinformation in your favor is slowly ‘seeded in.’ Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then ‘abort’ the consensus cracking by initiating a ‘forum slide.’
Technique #3 – ‘TOPIC DILUTION’
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a ‘RESOURCE BURN.’ By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a ‘gossip mode.’ In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to ‘drive in the wedge.’ By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.
Technique #4 – ‘INFORMATION COLLECTION’
Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a ‘show you mine show me yours’ posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your ‘favorite weapon’ and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or an illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the forum members and posting your favorite ‘technique of operation.’ From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.
Technique #5 – ‘ANGER TROLLING’
Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present an image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing their powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes – without the requirement to ‘stage’ a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to ‘lead’ the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you ‘do not care what the authorities think!!’ inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.
Technique #6 – ‘GAINING FULL CONTROL’
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavorable postings – and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the ‘ultimate victory’ as the forum is no longer participated in by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a ‘honey pot’ gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.
Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precedence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share them with HQ.
17 Techniques for Truth Suppression
- Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
- Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare you?" gambit.
- Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")
- Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
- Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.
- Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
- Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
- Dismiss the charges as "old news."
- Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than- criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall- back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
- Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
- Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report the leak.
- Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. For example: If Vince Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
- Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
- Scantly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
- Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
- Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
- Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.