COINTELPRO on the WWW - How it works, various examples

U

UberSquid

Guest
Has anyone ever tried to map out what we know of the players in the CONINTELPRO field (both side of the field, the truthseekers and the obfuscators)? Anyone who is relatively new to the realization that there's something not quite right would have a difficult time discerning where to place their trust without doing a lot of research. Over the past few years, I've been building my knowledge base with regards to who is really trying to reveal the truth and who is actively trying to hide it, and the recent ATS exchange really presses this point home.

I'm slowly attempting to compile a graph of relationships in the truthseeker field in an attempt to learn more about where the weak links might lie, based on a set of criteria showing how much I trust the source of information. As a baseline, I've been using the SoTT/Cassiopaea group as the most reliable since the message seems to have resonated the most with me (particularly the Wave and Adventures series, which is what brought me back to the site in the first place after following a link from a John Kaminski article on Rense a year or two back), and the PTB as the least reliable. Everybody else falls somewhere in between.

The data wouldn't set out to prove anything...just show the relationships between the groups/individuals in the "great game".

If anybody has done similar research, I'd be interested in seeing some of it. I haven't progressed very far as of yet, and I expect that this will be a very significant undertaking, but could prove valuable to anyone having their eyes opened for the first time as a reference point for their own research.
 
M

morgan

Guest
COINTELPRO Graph

Hi, you might find http://namebase.org/ of interest. Try out their proximity search for a visual graph of connections.

Namebase describes themselves as: a cumulative index of books and clippings
Citations to names of individuals and groups involving :
assassinations, organized crime, and scandals
Wall Street and transnational corporations
foreign policy and media establishments
political elites from the Right and Left
Cold War history and intelligence
 

j0da

Jedi Council Member
How to counteract professional rhetoric attacks?

Hello fellow travellers!

I've got a question - where could I find strategies/information regarding discussion?
My problem is - I try to get the "message" out to Polish portals, I post some clues or comments intended to raise intrest about wordly events in common people. I point some facts, link some dots and generally provide some logical conclusions in my comments to 'prefabricated' news at the mostly visited portals in my country.
Doing that, I meet with fierce attacks of various types, among which the most common are personal insults, derailing discussion to unimportant issues, and..well, I bet You know very well how it works.

The sad thing is that those tricky rhetoric insults leave an impression, that my comments are completely unreasonable, crazy, and that I'm a pitiful "leftist". I remember that there are some good books and materials covering that particular subject - I would be grateful for some guidance or links in this matter.

best regards,
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
How to counteract professional rhetoric attacks?

Joda, you might want to read the thread in "esoterica > the work > self-observation" especially the part about "negative emotions."

Yes, we have learned a LOT about these thing - and we learned it the hard way.

The best thing to do in the beginning, until you are strong and well-trained, is to just simply have your own website where you publish what you like, and there is no possibility of anyone else posting COINTELPRO backed responses. Until you are seasoned, you must pick your battles carefully and, if possible, pick the venue. Only after you have attracted others who think like you do, who can back you up and support you, can you begin to expand.
 

j0da

Jedi Council Member
How to counteract professional rhetoric attacks?

Laura, thanks for Your reply. Strenghtening myself is a good idea, as I seem to rush into the battlefield waving with the wooden stick :) Strange as it seems, it is a recurring phenomena in my case.

I'm in the middle of The Wave Series, and the number of things I still have to read is overwhelming, despite the fact I'm reading that sort of stuff a couple of hours almost every day since over two years. I'll look into the esoterica section soon. Thanks again!
 
G

GTB

Guest
How to counteract professional rhetoric attacks?

Although you may get ridiculed by ignorant debunkers(not sure if this is correct word to use), this doesn't mean that your message wasn't heard by those that do still have a brain. You posted links, your comments, facts, etc. which is all you can do. No reason to attempt to argue with these Neandrethals. E-Mail them a bucket of vomit, they'll get more out of it /snicker.

From the C's transcripts July 14, 1996: <---Where I got the bucket of vomit comment.

Q: (L) Is choice as intimately connected with the path as I am understanding it? Is it just simply part of how you are configured in your soul essence?
A: Close.
Q: (L) And there are people for whom STS is simply their choice. It is their path.
A: Close.
Q: (L) So, it is a judgment and a disservice to try to convert someone to your path, even if you perceive the end result of the path they are on, that it leads to dissolution? It is still their path?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And, if you send 'buckets of love and light' to such a one, and that is their path, you are violating their free will?
A: You might as well send "buckets" of vomit as that is how they will react.
Q: (MM) Why send anything? Just be neutral?
A: Judgment is STS.

***First post, very nervous***
 

ShamanSam

Padawan Learner
US admits it's going to use the web as propaganda

US lags in propaganda war: Rumsfeld

By Daniel Trotta Fri Feb 17, 3:57 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States lags dangerously behind al Qaeda and other enemies in getting out information in the digital media age and must update its old-fashioned methods, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Friday.


Modernization is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West, Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations.

The
Pentagon chief said today's weapons of war included e-mail, Blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras and Web logs, or blogs.

"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but ... our country has not adapted," Rumsfeld said.

"For the most part, the U.S. government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," Rumsfeld said, referring to old-fashioned U.S. retail stores and the online auction house, respectively.

Rumsfeld said U.S. military public affairs officers must learn to anticipate news and respond faster, and good public affairs officers should be rewarded with promotions.

The military's information offices still operate mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week while the challenges they faces occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Rumsfeld called that a "dangerous deficiency."

Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy of the opposition Democratic Party immediately criticized Rumsfeld as missing the point.

"Clearly, we need to improve our public diplomacy and information age communication in the Muslim world," Kennedy said in a statement. "But nothing has done more to encourage increased Al Qaeda recruitment and made America less safe than the war in
Iraq and the incompetent way it's been managed. Our greatest failure is our policy."

Rumsfeld lamented that vast media attention about U.S. abuses at
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq outweighed that given to the discovery of "
Saddam Hussein's mass graves."

On the emergence of satellite television and other media not under Arab state control, he said, "While al Qaeda and extremist movements have utilized this forum for many years ... we in the government have barely even begun to compete in reaching their audiences."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060217/pl_nm/security_rumsfeld_dc
 
Y

Youngfox

Guest
"...there's also a group called the Rendon Group that is all about controlling public opinion on government actions that people are reporting on their site meters. Considering that the Rendon Group has contracts from BushCo to spread pro-war propaganda, it's hard to imagine that they aren't also targeting left-leaning blogs, possibly trying to circumvent productive anti-war discussion by bomb-throwing and other nonsense."
Professional trolls* by Joshua Holland

behind netvocates (and it's link to customscoop)

A little corporatist cointelpro to stir the internet pot...ugh.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The Rules of Disinformation

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

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 of evidence 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 astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, 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 respect 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 any discussion 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:

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.

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.

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

by H. Michael Sweeney <

HMS@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 commentator become 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.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

by DCDave

_http://www.thebird.org/host/dcdave/article3/991228.html
_http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/library/martin1.html

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring
down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based
defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques
depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token
opposition party.

1 Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

2 Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

3 Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If,
in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the
suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe
the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4 Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest
charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or
plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all
the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5 Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter,"
"kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use
heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and
defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then
carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus
maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

6 Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting
strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply
pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to
over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7 Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can
be very useful.

8 Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9 Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or
"taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of
candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless,
less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of
a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With
effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by
stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10 Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as
ultimately unknowable.

11 Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With
thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We
have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster
"suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't
reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme
involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report
the leak.

12 Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was
murdered, who did it and why?

13 Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing
distractions.

14 Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This
is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

15 Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute
the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous,
source.

16 Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose"
scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real
opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people
for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17 Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question,
"What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet
news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine
critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the
newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to
print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them
from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
 

domi

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Laura said:
8 Dismiss the charges as "old news."
Also "historical revisionism" is used instead.
 

NormaRegula

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

5 Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter,"
"kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger."
In my neck of the woods, the local (owned) media calls an individual who has stood up to the obvious corruption between builders/bankers/corporate wineries and county/city politicians as a "gadfly," insinuating that the person spearheading any movement or information against the PTB is a flighty flake...as are his/her followers.
 

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

One mistake is to believe that such individuals/behaviours don't exist. Most people assume that any participants in a discussion will be like them, having conscience, searching for truth, following logics.

This can remind us of an extract of 9/11 :

Norman Finkelstein in 9/11 said:
In the course of preparing the chapters of this book devoted to Israel’s human rights record in the Occupied Territories, I went through literally thousands of pages of human rights reports, published by multiple, fiercely independent, and highly professional organizations—Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel—each fielding its own autonomous staff of monitors and investigators.

Except on one minor matter, I didn’t come across a single point of law or fact on which these human rights organizations differed.

In the case of Israel’s human rights record, one can speak today not just of a broad consensus—as on historical questions—but of an unqualified consensus. All these organizations agreed, for example, that Palestinian detainees have been sytematically ill treated and tortured, the total number now probably reaching the tens of thousands.
Yet if, as I’ve suggested, broad agreement has been reached on the factual record, an obvious anomaly arises: what accounts for the impassioned controversy that still swirls around the Israel-Palestine conflict? To my mind, explaining this apparent paradox requires, first of all, that a fundamental distinction be made between those controversies that are real and those that are contrived. To illustrate real differences of opinion, let us consider again the Palestinian refugee question.

It is possible for interested parties to agree on the facts yet come to diametrically opposed moral, legal, and political conclusions. Thus, as already mentioned, the scholarly consensus is that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948.

Israel’s leading historian on the topic, Benny Morris, although having done more than anyone else to clarify exactly what happened, nonetheless concludes that, morally, it was a good thing—just as, in his view, the “annihilation" of Native Americans was a good thing—that, legally, Palestinians have no right to return to their homes, and that, politically, Israel’s big error in 1948 was that it hadn’t “carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country—the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan" of Palestinians.

However repellant morally, these clearly can’t be called false conclusions.

Returning to the universe inhabited by normal human beings, it’s possible for people to concur on the facts as well as on their moral and legal implications, yet still reach divergent political conclusions.

Noam Chomsky agrees that, factually, Palestinians were expelled; that, morally, this was a major crime; and that, legally, Palestinians have a right of return. Yet, politically, he concludes that implementation of this right is infeasible and pressing it inexpedient, indeed, that dangling this (in his view) illusory hope before Palestinian refugees is deeply immoral.

There are those, contrariwise, who maintain that a moral and legal right is meaning-less unless it can be exercised and that implementing the right of return is a practical possibility.

For our purposes, the point is not who’s right and who’s wrong but that, even among honest and decent people, there can be a real and legitimate differences of political judgment.

This having been said, however, it bears emphasis that—at any rate, among those sharing ordinary moral values—the range of political disagreement is quite narrow, while the range of agreement quite broad.
 

Nienna

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Looks like someone else is familiar with Cointelpro.

Another look at how to spot cointelpro agents.

And the 9th Rule of Disinformation looks like the one Bush practices. :lol:
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.
Thanks, Laura.
 

Johnno

The Living Force
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

There was a recent case of this with Jimmy Carter breaking the "unwritten rule" of criticising GW. Media matters has an article where it describes the myth of this "unwritten rule", however I'm not 100% sure which of the 25 it applies to, probably number 2 . There isn't a "myth" category :)

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705220006

Reporting Carter comments, media repeat myth of "unwritten rule" against ex-presidents criticizing successors

On the May 21 edition of NBC's Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams teased a segment on former President Jimmy Carter's (D) recent criticism of President Bush by asking, "[D]id a former president break an unwritten rule when commenting on the current president?" Williams later asserted that "[t]he thought has been there are four guys alive who know the pressures of" the presidency -- "three former, one current president" -- and "there's kind of an unwritten rule about criticism." Similarly, during the May 21 broadcast of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes asserted that "Carter's remarks were unprecedented," and also claimed that one of the things "former presidents didn't do" was "criticize their successors." In fact, as The New York Times reported May 22, "there have been several instances of 'when ex-presidents attack' over the years" and "presidential scholars roll their eyes at the notion that former presidents do not speak ill of current ones."

From the Times article, headlined "When Former Presidents Assail the Chief":

Nothing rattles Washington quite like a good violation of unwritten rules, especially when the violator and the violated are both presidents (past and present, respectively).

[...]

"I love how because of our short memories, we come up with these eternal rules that don't really apply," said the historian Tim Naftali, the director-designate of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum.

Indeed, there have been several instances of "when ex-presidents attack" over the years. As recently as a few months ago, former President Gerald R. Ford criticized Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, albeit from the grave. In an article in The Washington Post, Bob Woodward quoted from an interview he conducted with Mr. Ford with the understanding that he could only publish Mr. Ford's remarks after he died.

Eisenhower was critical of John F. Kennedy's domestic policies, the first President Bush pounded on Bill Clinton, now his pal, for his Haiti policy, and Nixon chided the first President Bush (for comparing himself to Harry Truman in his 1992 re-election campaign).

Theodore Roosevelt was brutal in his assaults on Taft and Woodrow Wilson, said Patricia O'Toole, author of "When Trumpets Call," a book about Roosevelt in the years after he left office. She pointed out, however, that Roosevelt would run for president again, putting him in something of a different category than Mr. Carter (who by all accounts will not).

Still, Mr. Carter did not call President Bush a "puzzlewit" and a "fathead" as Roosevelt did Taft, according to "When Trumpets Call."

Yet, despite this well-documented history, many in the media have regularly insisted, as Williams did, that an "unwritten rule" exists which prohibits former presidents from speaking out against current ones, often while discussing a former president doing exactly that. For instance:

* A November 16, 2005, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial on Carter's book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (Simon & Schuster, 2005) asserted that Carter had violated "[o]ne of the great unwritten rules of modern political life" which "is that former presidents do not publicly criticize the policies of a sitting successor."

* Similarly, a November 4, 2005, Post-Gazette news article on Carter's book and publicity tour asserted that "Mr. Carter has chosen to speak out harshly against Mr. Bush this week -- breaking an unwritten rule that past presidents do not publicly criticize the current one."

* A November 4, 2005, Christian Science Monitor review of Carter's book stated that "t is decidedly unusual for a former president to publicly castigate the policies of a sitting president." The review also noted that Carter "saved some criticism for his own Democratic Party" by noting his opposition to some members' allegedly "overemphasizing the abortion issue."

* On the September 19, 2005, edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that Clinton, in an interview on ABC, did something that President George H.W. Bush "did not do, and that is criticize the sitting president and his administration." In fact, as Media Matters for America noted, former President Bush repeatedly made comments critical of Clinton, while Clinton was in office. Hume later issued an on-air correction.

* In his September 11, 2005, column, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jim Wooten stated of Carter's criticism of the federal government's slow response to Hurricane Katrina: "The willingness of a former president to stand on foreign soil and criticize a sitting president, as Jimmy Carter did, redefines the presumed rules of political engagement."

* A September 14, 2003, Los Angeles Times article discussed the alleged "unwritten rule" while reporting on Clinton's criticism of "President Bush's tendency to discount longtime allies and such organizations as the United Nations in making foreign policy decisions." In making such judgments, according to the Times, "Clinton carefully tested the unwritten rule against former presidents criticizing the current officeholder."

* On the May 29, 2003, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, NewsMax.com columnist and former Rep. John LeBoutillier (R-NY) claimed, unchallenged, that "both before it [the Iraq war] and during it, Bill Clinton was very critical of the Bush administration, violating an unwritten but usually honored rule by ex-presidents not to criticize their immediate successor."

* A November 3, 2002, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial again claimed "[t]here is an unwritten rule that former presidents and secretaries of state don't criticize current foreign policy."

* An October 15, 2001, Daily Oklahoman editorial stated of Carter's criticism of "President Bush's Iraq policy": "Carter, as he has done before, broke the unwritten rule that former presidents do not criticize the current chief executive."

* In an August 1, 2002, article on a "Rose Garden ceremony" in which Bush accepted "the recommendations of a blue-ribbon election reform commission" of which Carter was co-chairman, the New York Daily News reported that "[n]o mention was made of Carter's" recent criticism of Bush's "policies," which "violated the unwritten rule that former Presidents don't bash their successors."

* Another Daily Oklahoman editorial, this one from July 30, 2001, claimed that Carter's "comments" critical of Bush's "positions on global warming, missile defense and the Middle East ... broke a tradition of former presidents not publicly criticizing their successors."

* A June 8, 1999, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article stated of Ford's and Carter's criticism of Clinton's Kosovo policy: "There's an unwritten rule that former presidents refrain from criticizing the current occupant of the White House. But President Clinton's policies in Kosovo have prompted two former commanders in chief to speak out." Ford had said "that Clinton 'miscalculated the potency, the potential success' of an exclusively air war with Yugoslavia, amongst other things, and, according to the Sentinel, Carter "accused Clinton of failing to exhaust negotiations before using a bombing campaign that included cluster bombs that 'kill or maim' Serbian troops."

From the May 21 edition of NBC's Nightly News:

WILLIAMS: And when we come back here tonight, did a former president break an unwritten rule when commenting on the current president? We'll have the White House dustup when we continue.

[...]

WILLIAMS: And, David, while we have you, let's talk about Jimmy Carter. In one interview, he criticized President Bush. In another, in a BBC interview, he criticized Bush's relationship with Tony Blair. The thought always has been there are four guys alive who know the pressures of that office -- three former, one current president -- that there's kind of an unwritten rule about criticism. What has the White House said in return?

GREGORY: Well, the president tried to play all of this down. It goes back to the former president's comments about this administration perhaps being the worst in history because of its foreign policy and America's position in the rest of the world. Jimmy Carter appeared on Today this morning with Meredith Vieira, saying perhaps those words were misinterpreted or careless, he said. The president today said, "Look, I get criticized a lot, and I'm trying to do the right thing here." But inside, there really is a feeling that this went over the line as Carter accused Blair of being subservient. They felt that was "sad," and here -- and they think that Americans, frankly, Brian, are tuning out former President Carter on some of the other criticisms.

WILLIAMS: All right. David Gregory from the White House tonight. David, thanks as always.

From the May 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:

BARNES: Yeah, he didn't -- but I think he believed them, though. That's what he does think about Bush. Look, Carter's remarks were unprecedented. These are the harshest ones from him. They may be the harshest that an ex-president has aimed at his successor --

HUME: At a sitting president.

BARNES: At a sitting president. And there used to be two things that presidents -- former presidents didn't do: they didn't criticize their successors, and they particularly didn't criticize them when they were overseas.

HUME: Well, he wasn't overseas.

BARNES: He wasn't this time, but he has done that in the past.
 
Top Bottom