Home  FAQ  Search  Memberlist  Usergroups  KDR  Register  Log in  

Share | 

 25 Rules of Disinformation

Go down 


Posts : 788
Join date : 2009-10-20
Location : in the rainforest

PostSubject: 25 Rules of Disinformation   Fri 23 Oct 2009, 7:33 pm


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

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.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
25 Rules of Disinformation
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation.....
» Strict School Rules in China seem bizarre
» General Rules
» Need Help with Forum Rules
» This forum brakes your rules: Illicit contents, Hateful or abusive content, Defamatory content and / or affecting ...

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
WWWS :: Main Forums :: Current Information Operations (IO)-
Jump to: