-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 12/15/99 3:56:22 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << >From: "Joe f" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [piml] Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: > >Greetings All >here is a little blurb that i post now and then. It is something we should >all keep in mind. This is on my desktop and i read it everyday to keep >matters just a little clearer, and to remind me of what is out there. >my regards >joe freitas ><http://www.cell2000.net/~users/beowulf/>http://www.cell2000.net/~users/beo >wulf/ >ICQ#27822497 > >July 14, 1998 >Real-To: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation > >(POLITICIANS CREDO) >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 libel 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. And definitely obtain Michael Collins >Piper's "FINAL JUDGMENT", contact ><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] for >details. > >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 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 "minutiae" 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 over-flown 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 over-flights 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)? > >> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
