From http://www.veteranstoday.com
Friday, September 20, 2013
25 Ways to Suppress the Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
From Twenty-Five Ways
To Suppress Truth: The Rules of
Disinformation (Includes The 8
Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H.
Michael Sweeney. These 25 rules are everywhere in media, from political
debates, to television shows, to comments on a blog.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/
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 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.
8. 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 sources.
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.
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.
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 lose interest more quickly without having to address the
actual issues.
13. 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.
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 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
relevance.
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.
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 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.
The Changing of Knowledge in the Age of Information
The Changing of Knowledge in the Age of Information
In this country, we have been raised with certain
information that has been held as knowledge, facts, or truth. We've even been
taught some of this information in school. Then, we find out that "new
studies refute the previous claim that..."
This is a tool for confusion.
Recently, I saw a news item declaring that the concept of
"right brain & left brain" has been refuted by a new study.
Before that, I saw a news item telling us that bananas
aren't good for people.
Before that, I saw a trend in websites about the chakras,
stating that the will is located in the throat chakra, when all along it had
been assigned as the province of the solar plexus chakra, as shown in books
& websites on the subject, which I had been studying, back in 2006-2008.
What does this tell me? That they change what is truth as it
suits them. Who are "they"? “They”
are those who reap the most benefits from manipulating information.
Whenever examining a study that refutes some previous claim,
or any so-called scientific study for that matter, one must examine who funded
these studies and who benefits the most from the conclusions of such studies.
And remember, the medical community (doctors) used to tell
people that smoking was good for you!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)