Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
by
H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000)
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 Author's Web
site:
<http://www.proparanoid.com>
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin,
the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled
and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied
in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst
offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. 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 truth and/or 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. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing
disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.
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 to)
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 interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people
think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to
propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply
impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of
victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.
It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break
the chain of evidence for a given solution, 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 solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth
still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed
solution, chain, or link, 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 by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to
suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete
examination of any chain ofevidence 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 ledastray by these time-proven tactics.
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.
For such disinformationalists, 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 select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of
a break, 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. Likewise, 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 position, idea, or
solution -- very much 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
their early successes. 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 anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees
is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.
So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), 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
latter 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 seven traits, some of
which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form
of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical
events, and a proper response.[examples & response- http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html]
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.
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 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 lose 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.'
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, 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 and 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 theircharacter 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. .
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 (now 8) distinct traits: