An essay explaning how truth suppression is used in general and
how it can relate to government and corporate assurances
that deceive the public in regards to y2k. These techniques
are put into the context of conspiracy theories, but they are often used by those in denial
or who represent the status quo or those who have something to lose from Y2K (that is,
almost everyone).
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 (in this case, the magnitude and facts of Y2K), 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 emotionalise 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 of the disinfo artist 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, or "shoot the messenger".
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 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 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 side-tracks,
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. [President Clinton]
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 rumour mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges,
regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumours 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 rumours". If you can associate
the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumour" 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. Side-track 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. 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.
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 "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 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 candour 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 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. 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 polarise the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key
issues.
18. Emotionalise, Antagonise, 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 neutralise
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 neutralise 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 favourable 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 favourably. 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.
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
non-acceptance. 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.
