Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Posted by Bruecke at 14:00

Vatic Note: So why is so much happening and we are fed so many different views and distractions and excuses that

don’t make any sense???  We have the most ridiculous answers for why birds and fish and crabs worldwide went belly

up all at once.  The excuses and reasons why are so ludicrous as to be insulting to those they are fed to, thats me and you.

The reason they feed us this garbage is to pacify us and redirect us to some other issue and we all know  the powers that

be control all sources of information including controlled opposition publications on both the left and the right as we see

from Newsmax on the right and Alternet on the left along with others on both sides.   This below explains it.  Its actually

an official training write up for trolls, the MSM, controlled forums etc.   Its worth studying as once you get how this

works,  you can see it while it unfolds before your very eyes and share it with the sheeple so they can learn to spot the

disinformation and counter it or at the very least ignore it.   Since the net I am sure they are working on upgrading their

pathetic list of tactics.   Well,  lets hope they go down before they finish… I would hate to see anyone else assassinated

that way or any way for that matter. 

By H. Michael Sweeney

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.
…
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.
…
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 any discussion

meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid  and they generally put it

in exactly those terms.
…
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.  (VN:  This is their favorite  and the one we get to experience the most) 

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 their character 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.

Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz