Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright © 1997 All rights reserved
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 Light vs. Shadow home page:
http://www.teleport.com/~sweenfam/lightshadow.html
Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David
Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of
dealing with truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious
crimes are studied in public forums. 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 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.
Understand that when the those seeking resolution of such crimes
proceed in attempting to uncover truth, they try their best to present
factual information constructed as an argument for a particular
chain of evidence towards a particular solution to the crime. This
can be a largely experimental process via trial and error, with a
theory developed over time to perfection or defeated by the process.
This is their most vulnerable time, the time when a good disinfo
artist can do the greatest harm to the process.
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 at least make people think
the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not.
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot
break the chain of evidence, 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 basis is lost, but truth still wins out. There
is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed chain 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 to prevent new links from being
forged by a kind of intimidation.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull his strings who stand
to suffer should the crime be solved, and therefore, who stand to
benefit should it be the opposite outcome. In ANY such case, they
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.
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 the links seem weaker than they are, 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. 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
problem, position, or idea -- usually ideas, postulations, or theories
which are in development at the time. People often use such
mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollenization 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 successes in
seeking a final truth. 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.
So, as you read here in the NGs the various discussions on various
matters, 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 six traits,
some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each
contains a simple example in the form of actual paraphrases form
NG comments or commonly known historical events, and a proper
response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat
offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should
avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks,
unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by
the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply
citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a
complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions
statement at end):
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation)
rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional
disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly
by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the
criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you
know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news
anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have
to deal with the issues.
Example: Media was present in the courtroom when in 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 is
that E. Howard Hunt lost his liable case against Liberty Lobby
(Spotlight had reported he was in Dallas that day and were sued for
the story). See Mark Lane's 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.
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 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"
which can have no basis in fact.
"You can't prove his material was legitimately from French
Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that
flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he
really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating
around the Internet for months."
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single
FBI interview statement to media and a supportive statement by a
Congressman who has not 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. "If these exist, the public has not
seen them."
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. 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. 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 so
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. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why
or citing sources.
"You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic
considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally,
for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of
souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual
450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850
combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with
direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no
Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals have 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. 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 with denial 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. Your 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. 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 them 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. 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. 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
feeling it makes us, so much so that we are to ignore more
important matters? 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 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 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. 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 with an apparent deductive logic in a way that
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. 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 items qualifying for rule 10.
Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is 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. 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 best definitive example of avoiding issues by this
technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the
Warren Report.
Proper response: 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
magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues
by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - invoke authority)?
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?" True, since the dental records
and autopsy report showing his body was two inches two 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 or 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 based on highly suspicious matters which themselves
tend 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 because 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." 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 avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to
sidetrack us with an emotional response -- 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 unless you can
provide concrete facts to support your contentions of relevance.
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 seemed 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 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 may require 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. Only YOUR 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.
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 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 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. 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 (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) is achieved,
the matter can be considered officially closed.
Example: According to one OK bombing 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.
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. 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 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 (any day now) to talk about -- keeping in the sports
theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a
game and 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 proper
intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
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 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 distinct traits:
1) 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) They tend to pick and choose their 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) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with
a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in
general discussion in the particular public arena. 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) 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) Their 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) 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
presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the
"image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend
to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not
emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their
role in type" 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.
7) There is also a tendacy 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.
I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my 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.
|