[Lula-chat] Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

[Chuck Kerschner]

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
<http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556>

     From the Resonant Resurrections Dept: This wise little
     version of "Cover-ups for Dummies" has been floating on
     the Net since the late '90s at least.  Given the
     government/media handling of 9/11, the resulting wars, and
     recent electoral fraud it often seems our top officials
     must read it everyday.  If we're to bring the truth alive
     in 2005, it may help to occasionally remind ourselves how
     the pros play the game. - Editor

     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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 with an apparent deductive logic in a way that
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 for
items 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. Vanishing 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 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.

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 (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.

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 proper
intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

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.

[Unquote]

Chuck
-- 
Footnotes - my soapbox:
SUPPORT IRV - Instant Runoff Voting:
	<http://www.fairvote.org/irv/>
	<http://www.calltheroll.com/web_app/ctrs_home.aspx>
TRASH Touchscreen voting - unless you really trust Windows
and vote-machine manufacturers.
	<http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm>
	<http://www.blackboxvoting.org/>
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS - BRING THEM HOME! ALIVE! RESTORE THEIR BENEFITS!
GIVE "W" Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Richard Perle,
Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice and David Addington a pack, a rifle,
and some sun-tan lotion and SEND THEM to Iraq to replace the troops.
URGE the British Parliament to do the same with their Prime Minister.
Info:	<http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/>
=======================================================================
_______________________________________________
Lula-chat mailing list
Lula-chat at lula.org
http://www.lula.org/mailman/listinfo/lula-chat