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.

 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 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.