Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT softcom.net>]

I just got this from a friend and it seems appripo to this discussion.

Lynda
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "EarthNSky" <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>
> Have you noticed that a lot of "news" is recycled or actually old stuff
> being re-reported?
= = = = =
http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:   The Rules of Disinformation 
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)  by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000)

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby  granted for any non commercial use 
provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information 
in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author's 
Web site:   <http://www.proparanoid.com>

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth  Suppression by David Martin, the 
following may be useful to the initiate  in the world of dealing with veiled 
and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are 
studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of 
the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where 
the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, 
there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against  those 
seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are 
specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also 
included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist 
which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives.
The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the 
rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested 
motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing 
disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will 
evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid 
and conclusive, that  one or more links are weak and need further 
development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links 
can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel 
links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely 
supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by 
raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point 
of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere 
with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak 
or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative 
solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing 
down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory  is 
assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the 
chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If 
the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain 
developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but 
truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of 
a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the 
truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a 
person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given 
issue, it is  really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the 
disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or 
false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent 
discussion  in general.

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 ofevidence 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 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.

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 anydiscussion 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 latter 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.[examples & response- 
http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html]

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):

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 theircharacter 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. .

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most 
common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can 
usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 
8) distinct traits:

=============================================================

http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html


Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

by H. Michael Sweeney <

HMS AT proparanoid.com>
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)

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 commentatorbecome 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.

I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, 
Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. 
Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of 
oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming 
subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will 
not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the 
truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, 
for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.