by VOXFUX
http://educate-yourself.org/tg/tmdisinfoagents08jul04.shtml
Posted July 8, 2004
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 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. 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.
This is why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw
that movie, you know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to
Al Pacino's character. For the CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called
in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark
Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment
was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the
very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was
at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage
control.
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 any discussion 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 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 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. 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):
1) Avoidance. 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) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose 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) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally
with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation
in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. 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) Teamwork. 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) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have 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) Artificial Emotions. 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 unacceptance. 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 rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining
the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and
their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a
job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' 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, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray
their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic,
or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really
root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will
simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author.
For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his
poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having
only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who
don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular
topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News
Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved
in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth
can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered
players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity
to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT
- FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as
email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72
hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy
for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction
from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often
ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours
delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted
truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect
to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked
twice for the same sin.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish
VOX
Posted by VOXFUX @ 12/17/2003 02:24 AM EST
Forward courtesy of Tim White <phantom469366@yahoo.com>
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.