The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
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 loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
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.'
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.
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.
6. Artificial Emotions
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant
Word for today: "Cyberstalking" from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberstalkingReplyDelete
Motives of Cyberstalkers:
Mental profiling of digital criminals has identified factors that motivate stalkers as: envy; pathological obsession (professional or sexual); unemployment or failure with own job or life; intention to intimidate and cause others to feel inferior; the stalker is delusional and believes he/she "knows" the target; the stalker wants to instill fear in a person to justify his/her status; belief they can get away with it (anonymity); intimidation for financial advantage or business competition; revenge over perceived or imagined rejection.
By anonymous online mobs:
Web 2.0 technologies have enabled online groups of anonymous people to self-organize to target individuals with online defamation, threats of violence and technology-based attacks. These include publishing lies and doctored photographs, threats of rape and other violence, posting sensitive personal information about victims, e-mailing damaging statements about victims to their employers, and manipulating search engines to make damaging material about the victim more prominent. Victims are often women and minorities. They frequently respond by adopting pseudonyms or going offline entirely.A notable example of online mob harassment was the experience of American software developer and blogger Kathy Sierra. In 2007, a group of anonymous individuals attacked Sierra, threatening her with rape and strangulation, publishing her home address and Social Security number, and posting doctored photographs of her. Frightened, Sierra cancelled her speaking engagements and shut down her blog, writing “I will never feel the same. I will never be the same.”
Experts attribute the destructive nature of anonymous online mobs to group dynamics, saying that groups with homogeneous views tend to become more extreme as members reinforce each other's beliefs, they fail to see themselves as individuals, so they lose a sense of personal responsibility for their destructive acts, they dehumanize their victims, which makes them more willing to behave destructively, and they become more aggressive when they believe they are supported by authority figures. Internet service providers and website owners are sometimes blamed for not speaking out against this type of harassment.
"DEAD BODIES EVERYWHERE" - STILL WAITING FOR THE FBI TO ARREST THE SATANIC SERIAL KILLER WITH THE FBI# => "SHOT-CALLER" ROBERT ADOLPH ENYART FBI# 678532LA7 IS A SCARED LITTLE BITCH WHO KNOWS HE IS CAUGHT!Delete
DIAL: 1-800-CALL-FBI & TELL THE FBI TO HURRY THE FUCK UP & ARREST "PRO-LIFE PASTOR" BOB ENYART OR EXPECT MORE...DEAD BODIES EVERYWHERE! WATCH: http://youtu.be/o8-2Y7-9JNU
SATANIC SERIAL KILLER = ROBERT ADOLPH ENYART 666 "DAXIS" -- STILL WAITING FOR THE FBI...CALL "PASTOR" BOB ENYART LIES AT 1-800-8-ENYART & TELL HIM TO KILL HIMSELF BEFORE MORE PEOPLE DIE!
DOB 1-10-59 | Social Security # 152-60-4382 | FBI # 678532LA7 | CO License # CO368941
RELIGIOUS PSYCHOPATH IN DENVER, COLORADO WANTED FOR KIDNAPPING, RAPE, MURDER, EXTORTION, FRAMING INNOCENT PEOPLE & 1,000's MORE CONSPIRACY CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY...GOD HATES BOB!
Watch videos "pro-life" cult leader Bob Enyart (the inadequate little bitch serial killer) can't do a thing about here: BOB ENYART LIES PLAYLIST
Google "Bob Enyart 666 Arrest Record" & "Bob Enyart JonBenet Ransom Note"
"LIKE" on Fakebook: ROBERT ADOLPH ENYART 666 SATANIC SERIAL KILLER
Also check out "Gaslighting" | From WikipediaReplyDelete
Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented with the intent of making a victim doubt his or her own memory and perception. It may simply be the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, or it could be the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim...
Sociopaths frequently use gaslighting tactics. Sociopaths consistently transgress social mores, break laws, and exploit others, but are also typically charming and convincing liars who consistently deny wrongdoing. Thus, some who have been victimized by sociopaths may doubt their perceptions.
FEAR the Whistleblowers, *Krooks* - Careful who you make your worst enemy...ReplyDelete
Look up the word "SCANDAL" - From Wikipedia
A scandal is a widely publicized allegation or set of allegations that damages (or tries to damage) the reputation of an institution, individual or creed. A scandal may be based on true or false allegations or a mixture of both.
SCANDAL - a trap or stumbling-block, the metaphor is that wrong conduct can impede or "trip" people's trust or faith.
Some scandals are broken by whistleblowers who reveal wrongdoing within organizations or groups, such as Deep Throat (William Mark Felt) during the 1970s Watergate scandal. Sometimes an attempt to cover up a possible scandal ignites a greater scandal when the cover-up fails.
Defamatory or libelous comments will be prosecuted in a court of LAW. This is wikipedia's definition of defamation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DefamationReplyDelete
"The communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)...
In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being." If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.
In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violates Freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
A person who harms another's reputation may be referred to as a "famacide", "defamer", or "slanderer". The Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libelous writing.
Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures...
Well, we sure are building up quite the criminal conspiracy charges against these debased disinformationalists. Remember - Just because a crime is deleted, doesn't mean it didn't happen...
"I'm told there are some really bad-cats out there..."
DO WRONG & RISK THE CONSEQUENCES...