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
their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by
destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their
health.
No comments:
Post a Comment