You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (8)
sorted by:
▲
1
▼
–
User11212019
[S]
1 point
ago
+1 / -0
- Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man - usually, in any large~cafe matter of high visibility. someone will make charges earty on which can be or were already easily dealt wilh • a kind ol investment for the futute should 1he mailer not be so easily con1ained.) Where it can be foreseen. have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as pan of lhe initial conlingency plans. Subsequenl charges, regatdless of validily or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated wilh lhe 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.
- Est~ish 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 reinfon;e this on your behaJf. la1er, and even put)licly ·call for an end to 1he nonsense· because you have already 'done lhe right thing.' Done property, this can gamer sympalhy and ,espec1 for ·con,ing clean· and ·owning up· to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
- Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the O'leraJI umb<ella 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 intere.st more quickty without having to address the actual issues.
- Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
- O&mand 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.
- Fit the facts to altemate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
- Vanish evidence and witnesses. If ii does no1 exisl, it is not fact. and you won·1 have 10 address the issue.
- Change the subjoct. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to sid~track the discussion with abrasive or controvetSial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new. more manageable topic. This works especially weU with companions who can 'argue· with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
- Emotionalii e, Antagonize, and Goad Op1>onen1s. If you can't do any1hing else, chide and 1aunt your opponenls and draw 1hem into emotional responses which will lend to make lhem look foolish and overly molivaled, and generally render 1heir ma1erial somewhat less coherent Nol only will you avood discussing lhe issues in lhe first instance. but even if 1heir emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by thoo focusing on how ·sensitive they are to criticism.'
- Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is pertiaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regatdless ol what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums. claim the material irrelevant and demand proof Illa! is impossible lo, Ille opponent to come by (ii may exist bul nol be al his disposal, or ii may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or wilhheld. such as a murder weapon.) In older lo complelefy avoid discussing issues, ii may be requi red that you 10 categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by govemme<it Ct' other authorities have any meaning 0t relevance.
- False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations - as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues o, impede resolu1io11. This works besl when the crime was designed with contingencies for \he purpose. and 1he facts cannot be easily separated from \he fabricalions.
- Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, oc 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 property 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 favOfable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually. this technique is applied 10 find lhe guilty innocent. but ii can also be used 10 obtain charges when seeking to frame a viclim.
- Manufacnire a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or fnflueoce existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific. investjgative. or social research°' testimony which concludes favorably. In this way. if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
- 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, crea1e bigger news slo,ies (or 1rea1 lhem as such) to distract the multitudes,
- Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents front circulation by some definitfVe 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 infonnation. or merely by destroying them financially. emotionally. or severely damaging their heallll.
- Vonish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherNise overly ill11mina1ed and you think the heat is gelling loo hol, to avoid 1he issues. vaca1e 1he kitchen =l , Eight Trails of the Di sinformationalist Anonymous 02/04/15 (Wed) 00:25:34 ID: 78be3a No.1125516 » 112•••• » 1 u>§•• Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
- Avoidance. They never attually di scuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references oc cred&ntials. Rather. they merely imply this, that~ and the other. Virtually everything aboot their p,es811lalion implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter withoul arry further juslificalion for credibility.
- Selectivi1y. They lend lo pick and choose opponenls carefully, either applying lhe hit-and-run approach against mere commenlalors supl)Ortive ol opponen1s, or focusing heavier allacks on key opponents who a.re known to directly address issues, Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to i"nclude the comme,ntator as well.
- Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in genera! discussions in the. particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of generaJ concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
- Teamwork. They tend to operate in setf-c:ongratulato,y and complementary packs or teams. Of coorse, 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 opponen1 ptesenta1ion s1rength.
- Anti.conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ·conspiracy theorists' and. usually, for those who in aw, 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 llley do.
- Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusualJy thick skin - an ability to persevece. and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unaceeptance. This likely stems from intfflligence community training that. no matter how condemning the evidence. deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reac tive. The n&t result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial Most people. if responding in anger, for instance. will express lheir animosily lhroughout their rebullal. But disinfo types usually have trouble main1aining the 'image' and are hot and cold wilh cespe<:t 10 pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communicalions slyle. It's jus1 a job. and !hey often seem unable 10 ·act 1heir role in characte( as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a reaJ 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. VVith 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 styJe. substance. and so fotth. or simply give up.
- Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives_ This may stem from not 1eally knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat ·rreudian·. so to speak, in lhal perhaps lhey really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted lhat often. lhey will simply cile contradiclOty information which neu1ralizes itself and lhe aulhor Fo, inslance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot. but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar. incol1eren1 style) on having only a grade-school educalion, I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Anolher claimed no knowledge of a particular lopic/situalion but laler claimed first-hand knowledge of ii.
- Time Constant. Recently disco•1ered, with respect to News Groops. 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; a) ANY NG pos1ing by a 1arge1ed ptoponenl for lruth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and olher empowered players can afford to pay people 10 si1 1here and walch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT · FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, 0< lhe visil Of may be swayed towards truth. b) When dealing in more direcl ways with a disinforma(ionalisl, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR • there will usu<llly be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sil-<lown team discussion on response strategy fo, besl effect and even enough time 10 'get permission' or inslruclion from a formal chain of command. c) In 1he NG example 1) above. it will olten ALSO be seen lha1 bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay • the ream approach in play. This is especially 1rue when lhe targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more imponant with ,espect to potential to reveal truth. Thus. a serious truth
permalink
save
report
block
reply