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 to 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 opponent's viewpoint.
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 loose 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 rule 10.
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.'
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 designed with contingencies for the purpose,
and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
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.
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 their character 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.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
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) Time Constant
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate
for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and
Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as
disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.
