We've had our own "experience" with Wikipedia. What Acharya is talking about below is just the tip of the iceberg. I do find it ironic that Acharya who has hosted or allowed the dessemination of defamatory material about us (cass.org, etc), also finds herself on the receiving end of the same type of attack...
It all comes back to Protocol 12 which is the essence of ideological vectoring AKA COINTELPRO:Wikipedia Response
Is Wikipedia an "encyclopedia" or a forum for malicious gossip and libel?
Wikipedia's "experienced" operators and "administrators" are frequently aggressive young males in their 20s who are not "experts" on their chosen subjects and who use Wikipedia to defame others. Wikipedia should not be used as a credible reference.
Wikipedia Watch"Another problem is that most of the administrators at Wikipedia prefer to exercise their police functions anonymously. The process itself is open, but the identities of the administrators are usually cloaked behind a username and a Gmail address. (Gmail does not show an originating IP address in the email headers, which means that you cannot geolocate the originator, or even know whether one administrator is really a different person than another administrator.) If an admin has a political or personal agenda, he can do a fair amount of damage with the special editing tools available to him. The victim may not even find out that this is happening until it's too late. From Wikipedia, the material is spread like a virus by search engines and other scrapers, and the damage is amplified by orders of magnitude. There is no recourse for the victim, and no one can be held accountable. Once it's all over the web, no one has the power to put it back into the bottle."
Someone at Wikipedia named "crazyeddie" has openly stated that he is has it in for me and has made a number of derogatory comments. I have no idea why this person displays such animosity towards me, but his viciousness is disturbing. He has also told my supporters that they should back off, so that he and the others can continue to pillory me. He seems to think he can behave badly with impugnity because he is an "experienced Wikipedian." While disparaging my work because of its "conspiracy theories," this "crazy" person calls himself a "Discordian," a member of a wacky cult founded as a joke by Robert Anton Wilson. Wilson has written extensively about Illuminati conspiracies. Discordianism has a hierarchy that includes popes, high priests, deacons, chaplains, etc. From Wikipedia:
According to the Principia Discordia, POEE is "a tribe of philosophers, theologians, magicians,scientists, artists, clowns, and similar maniacs who are intrigued by Eris goddess of confusion and her doings." Furthermore it states that "POEE subscribes to the Law Of Fives of Omar's sect" and "POEE also recognizes the Holy 23."
As an example of extreme bias, here is what this 26-year-old "expert" has to say about me:
Again, where is this animosity and viciousness coming from? And why is it being allowed?Yes, I would like the overall message of said article to be "Acharya is a nut", but that is only because I believe that statement to be close to objective reality. crazyeddie 16:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm am firmly of the anti-Acharyan POV, and am likely to stay that way unless you or one of your comrades-in-arms manages to convince me otherwise. Which you have made no attempt to do. I fully intend to etch my particular POV into the article at the deepest possible level - by any means necessary. That includes compromising with my ideological opponents. You see, if I unilaterally attempt to introduce language into the article, then that language will be quickly removed. In order to make a permanent mark in the article, I'm going to have to gain consensus backing for my proposals - including the backing of my ideological opponents if at all possible. Therefore, it is in my and my POV's best interests to give you every opportunity to review my proposals and allow you every opportunity to raise objections. You counterproposals will be included if and only if you can gain consensus backing for them. crazyeddie 06:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
"Crazyeddie" states that he "flunked out" of one college. He is now attending a state university.
The question is: Why does Wikipedia give free rein to such shamelessly hypocritical, unqualified and hostile individuals, who haven't even read my books but who falsely present themselves as authorities on me and my work?
Furthermore, someone named AJA has seen fit to single out one aspect of my work, focusing on my critique of the Noahide Laws and Judaism. I critique ANY ideology that comes my way, including but not limited to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Mormonism. Singling out Judaism is a transparent attempt at smearing me. This behavior is absolutely uncalled for. Here's AJA's "unbiased" assessment:
The Christian "Zarove" chimes in, displaying not only extreme bias but also apparent sexism in his dismissal of my defense against his ongoing, vituperative defamation of me as a "hissy fit":The Jewish conspiracy I'm talking about is the one Acharya believes in because she's a nutcase. A.J.A. 17:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I would really like to know why "Zarove" - whose real name is Reginald Maxwell Cook - started this page, and why he holds such animosity and vituperation towards me to the point where he has threatened to commit crimes against me. He began this obviously personal attack on me, merely because I challenge his belief system. I did not personally attack him. I had never heard of him. I am merely defending myself against these vicious and unwarranted attacks on my person. Reginald Cook has repeatedly called me a liar, has been shown to be wrong, and has never apologized. He is clearly not a reasonable person. Since I am the one who is the subject of the page, it is my right to determine whether or not I will allow myself to be publicly and personally attacked. I sincerely doubt that Wikipedia would allow me to start a page on Reginald Cook, making all sorts of heinous accusations and character assassinations against him, and then leave it to stand, without castigating me. Reginald Cook's obsession with me and evident desire to destroy me are frankly disturbing.Acharya S's veiws on other htigns WHERE attmetoedot be added, but the fans objected as Acharya threw a hissy fit and acted like this was meant as an attack.
Reginald Cook also calls himself a "reporter," when he cannot even get the simplest of facts correct, such as the name of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, where I spent the year 1982-83 traveling to dozens of archeological sites under the tutelage of some of the modern era's most credentialed academics. In his attack on me, Reginald Cook repeatedly claims I never went to some school by the name of the American School of Greek Studies - he's right. I never went to that school, I've never heard of it, and don't even know that it is a real place.
This person harps about my nom de plume but hides his own identity under the name of "Zarove," while smugly and condescendingly referring to me as "Dorothy." This person thinks that being disrespectful and overly familiar shows how much he knows about me. He does not know anything about me other than what he has gleaned from the internet. While depicting himself as a "journalist," he is so incompetent a "researcher" that - despite having my name - he can't verify that I a member of the American School or what that membership entails. Here is the "great expert" on Acharya S that Wikipedia is bending over to accommodate.
In his efforts to coerce my supporters into allowing him to smear and libel me with impugnity, this disturbed individual Reginald Cook states the following:
Again, Reginald Cook has repeatedly accused me of lying about my meager credentials, which aren't much quantity-wise but which quality-wise are threatening enough, apparently. He has attempted to post personal information regarding my family on Wikipedia, and he has made numerous threats to my supporters, attempting to intimidate them into silence - "if she insists on fair representation" - by making libelous statements about me garnered from a violent mental patient who committed several crimes against me and who is wanted by federal authorities for three felonies, including child abduction. This clearly disturbed individual has been demonstrated repeatedly to be wrong in his libel against me, but he is not rebuked or called a liar in return. Meanwhile, my defenders are endlessly attacked for things they don't do, with countless strawman arguments tossed their way by individuals who are clearly arguing above their station. Apparently Reginald Cook sent an email to my publisher demanding to know whether or not they checked my credentials. I believe that Reginald Cook is attempting to make a name for himself by smearing me.Tell Acharya and her otherdisiples this.
If she continues to lead otehrs in a Wikiedit war, mor einformaion will be foudn on her, as furtherresearhc will be doen to validate her claims.
I have recently looke dover my old notes, then did a absic web search of university websites. I was wrong, she did not earn a full masters degree, though she did take a few master credits. Shde hodls only a Bachelors degree.
I also learned of her past lover who attemtoed to expose her past criminal record.
I also learend of her Court huistory.
I also learned of her poor grades in school, and how much a joke the "TRench master" allegation is. She was a trench master, btu she hardly gave orders to a team of persons. She took notes at a student dig,. It wasnt even a proffesisonal dig, it was a student dig.
Do you rlelay want me to look furthe rinto Dorothy and her past? If so, then by all means ocntinue this Wikiwar and Ill write a full scale Biogrpahy, compelte with Annotaitons and links to relevant websites, includingthe ASOGS and Frnaklin and MArshal.
I am not trying to threaten here. But I do insist on truth and accuracy. Acharya is not turthful nor is she accurate.
She wants ot present herself as soemtgin othe rhtna she is.This is lying.
If you persist in your useless harrassment and stupid claism that the "Status Quo" ar eht only oens htat need to present evidence, I ll present mroe than she woudl hope for.
If ytour Clay footed Idol woudl step out of th shadows and be forthright with her credentials and biases, fine, if not, and if you decide to once again rmeove all critisisms of her work, and insted only show praise and sypport, and list her as " A Historian, linguist, Religiosu Schilar, Mythologyst, and Archeologist", then Ill show how each and every claim is as fraudulent as she claism Christainity is.
Because unlike CHristainity, their are TONS of documents abotu her life.
Need I also check her credit hisotry?
Its posisble online.
And Im sorry to have to make it this way. Byt as a reporter, I know th eimorotance of what appears in a public venue. If I simply write how much a wonderful person she is nd list all the thigns she cliasm to be as fact, people will beleive this. This article needs to be about proven facts, nt a support of her premise andnot just her own propoganda.
This Aritlce is nbout her and her life, so a Biogrpahy is not a bad idea. I limited it to this information fornow, but will not hesitate to post facts about Dorothy Murdock if she insists on fair representaiton. Ill post every libnk to every soruce as well.
What she means by fair rpresentaiton, thought, is unabashed support with no critisism.
Now, she can be content with her claism beign refuted and challenged, her rela name onscured ot D. Murdock, and her illustrious list of talents removed, or else she can allow a full examination of her life.
Falsely accusing someone of "lying" and attacking their credibility, as Zarove and others have done repeatedly regarding my credentials is a matter for litigation, with "substantial liability for defamation." Zarove/Reginald Maxwell Cook has repeatedly lied, defamed my character and libeled me with falsehoods he evidently is receiving from rabid Christian apologist JP Holding, who in turn has been receiving these patent falsehoods from a wanted felon who terrorized and battered me; issued death threats against me, including in writing; attempted to hire at least one person on two occasions to kill me; committing perjury and other crimes numerous times; and eventually hired three thugs to abduct my small child out of my arms. He is currently wanted by the FBI. Here is the "source" that Zarove/Reginald is using for his defamation against me.
In the case of Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (497 U.S. I. 17-18. 111 L.Ed.2d I. 110 S. Ct. 2695, 2705-2706 (1990)), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
Putting in writing that I am a liar is "highly defamatory," according to this opinion, and Reginald Cook has done just that, repeatedly calling me a liar, mendaciously claiming I made up my credentials. While he makes much ado about my use of the terms "archaeologist, mythologist, historian and linguist" - which by the dictionary definitions of each, I am - Reginald Cook remarks that I am, like him, "A proffesional writter.""If a speaker says, 'In my opinion John Jones is a liar,' he implies a knowledge of facts which lead to the conclusion that Jones told an untruth. Even if the speaker states the facts upon which he bases his opinion, if those facts are either incorrect or incomplete, or if his assessment of them is erroneous, the statement may still imply a false assertion of fact. Simply couching such statements in terms of opinion does not dispel these implications; and the statement, 'In my opinion Jones is a liar,' can cause as much damage to reputation as the statement, 'Jones is a liar.' As Judge Friendly aptly stated: '[It] would be destructive of the law of libel if a writer could escape liability for accusations of [defamatory conduct] simply by using, explicitly or implicitly, the words 'I think.'"
Stating that I have a "past criminal record" is also libel of the highest order. This libel originated with the violent mental patient who committed crimes against me and my small child, and who is now wanted for three felonies. If Reginald Cook or anyone else, such as J.P. Holding, is in communication with this wanted felon, they are aiding and abetting a fugitive.
My so-called "court history" consists of a restraining order hearing against the violent fugitive who battered me. What are these "tons of documents" about my life? He claims I am not "accurate" - so are there literally "tons" of documents? Reginald Cook's behavior is frankly appalling. It is my opinion that Zarove/Reginald Cook should be banned permanently from Wikipedia.
Concerning Zarove/Reginald's threat to obtain my credit report, the credit agencies' websites clearly state that such a procurement of someone's credit report constitutes a federal crime:
Zarove/Reginald's threat to commit a federal crime against me has been reported to the FBI."I understand that it is a federal crime subject to incarceration and/or monetary penalties to obtain a personal credit report for someone other than myself."
"I understand obtaining a TransUnion Personal Credit Report under false pretenses is a federal crime punishable by incarceration and/or monetary penalties."
Reginald Cook further states that I received "poor grades" from my college, which is absolutely false. I would not have been accepted into the American School of Classical Studies if I had "poor grades." How does Reginald Cook know this supposed "fact?" Did he procure my school records? If so, he has committed a crime, since according to Federal and State law it is prohibited for educational institutions to disclose records to unauthorized parties. (Obviously, he has not obtained my school records, because I received good grades throughout school, so, once again, it is Reginald Cook who is lying.)
Let us provide yet another example of how "experienced Wikipedians" slant things in order to denigrate their targets. In my response to the vitriolic "JP Holding," I first state that Holding has been obtaining personal information aboudt me from a violent mental patient and wanted fugitive. Then I state that, in light of this behavior, Holding has no integrity and his work should be given no credibility. The "experienced Wikipedian" has taken that line out of context and inaccurately written:
This section has been changed to show the context. However, much of the rest of this hit piece proceeds with the same inaccurate and defamatory tactics.Christian apologist James Patrick Holding has also rebutted her work, to which she replied, "This man, JP Holding, has no integrity, and his writings should not be given credibility."
I also note that other subjects at Wikipedia--including not only other mythicists but also the mass-murdering Stalin, for heaven's sake--receive a much gentler treatment than I do!
Since Wikipedia has now found its way to the top of search engines in numerous subjects, it is clear that defamatory material will have a damaging effect on one's reputation and livelihood. Several websites have now cloned this malicious material about me.
The following further illustrates the misguided vision behind Wikipedia.
On November 29, 2005, a prominent and respectable U.S. citizen, John Seigenthaler, had an editorial published in USA Today entitled "A false Wikipedia 'biography,'" which criticizes the popular online "encyclopedia" called Wikipedia for its evident unprofessionalism in allowing any utterly unqualified person with a computer to post slanderous and malicious material. This malicious gossip included a claim that Seigenthaler was somehow involved in the Kennedy assassinations. After about half a year of complaining to Wikipedia, including conversations with its founder, Jim Wales, Seigenthaler was finally able to have the material removed. However, as he puts it, there is little or no legal recourse to be taken against those who damaged his reputation in the first place, as they are anonymous and untraceable.
So it is with the internet, and that is the risk one takes when becoming a public figure. Imagine how the President feels when he is assailed with the most vicious and cruel language imaginable. I suppose the First Amendment can always be invoked, but in the case of Wikipedia, one has to ask, is it trying to bill itself as a credible source of information, written by intelligent, educated, mature and composed people--which is generally the manner of individuals writing encyclopedias--or does Wiki wish to be seen as a gossip column for malicious, ignorant and libelous individuals who have nothing better to do than attack others? As it stands, Wikipedia often degenerates into a monstrous hit-piece and hatchet-job forum for disturbed individuals to vent their spleens. There is frequently little or no regulation, and anyone can write all sorts of nonsense. As Seigenthaler discovered, the malicious speech will likely stand--so long as the uneducated, ignorant and unprofessional "administrators" will it. If the administrators have a personal axe to grind--as they do with ME in particular, it seems--they will allow whatever any detractor wants to post, and they will bust the chops of all who may defend against such slander. It has become clear that Wikipedia is a venue for people to assail others with obvious ad hominems that have nothing to do with facts. Fortunately, the complaints seem to have helped, as--at the moment, that is on 12/1/05--Wikipedia has cleaned up its article on me. On the Discussion page, however, one young smart aleck "admin," as Wiki's volunteer editors are called, who has no expertise in my subject matter called me a "quack," whatever that means, and another said that he wants the article to make "Achyra look like a nut." Obviously, there is little professionalism among these punky youngsters on Wikipedia.
Let us examine the rubbish posted there about me--now mostly confined to the Discussion Page but originally within the article. First of all, much ado is made about my use of a pseudonym, while ALL of the critics themselves--including the administrators--are freely allowed to use pseudonyms. Apparently, the use of a pseudonym is perfectly fine if you're a coward writing a hit piece on another person but it is not okay if you are a writer attempting to protect yourself from these very same vicious individuals. I am critiquing a subject--religion--that has inspired millions of psychotic individuals to kill others in the "name of God." Evidently, these critics at Wikipedia have never heard of or are incapable of understanding the use of a nom de plume--a PEN NAME, which by its very nature has to do with writers and authors. The use of a nom de plume dates back thousands of years and is essentially IRRELEVANT. Nevertheless, I have been forced to endure this unmasking, which was set into motion by an unscrupulous and unethical individual named Robert Price, who maliciously and spitefully gave not only my "real name" but also my HOME ADDRESS and HOME PHONE NUMBER to malicious individuals who released it over the net. I cannot imagine being so low and trashy as to do such a thing, exposing the individual in question--and his or her family--to potential danger.
In the Wikipedia Discussion Page are remarks from the so-called "administrators," i.e., the ignorant and biased volunteers who are supposed to be bringing some semblance of regulation and professionalism to this gossip magazine. These individuals are clearly incompetent and unable to contain their own prejudices, to the point that the willfully allow fallacious allegations and slander to appear as "facts." Instead of removing offensive material they often simply clean it up, as John Seigenthaler discovered, by correcting spelling and grammar errors. Because one of my most virulent and disturbed critics on the Wiki page claims to be "dyslexic," a convenient excuse for his atrocious spelling and grammar, they have much work to do.
Again, while these critics now possess my real name, they are apparently so inept as to be unable to verify that I am indeed a Member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece, where I spent an entire year traveling to well over 100 sites and excavating briefly at the important site of Corinth. Contrary to the ignorant mumblings of these critics, the American School is NOT something one pays to get into. Yes, we had to pay tuition--bully for us, eh?--but we were also required to be a decent student in a relevant field. A Dean's List student, I had received a BA in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College--and had to pass a 9-hour written examination, as well as receiving recommendations from professors, to get into the American School. (My mentor was Dr. Anne Stein.) The American School of Classical Studies (ASCSA) is a very prestigious institution that has included some of the best known names within the field of Greek Classics and archaeology. I was the second youngest member accepted that year, while most of the others were PhD candidates in their late 20s to early 50s. I shared a bathroom with a Harvard grad. It was a very grueling year that included long hikes into secluded areas all over the rugged Greek countryside. We were required to make presentations at various sites. My professors included Fred Cooper, Charles Williams and John Camp, who escorted Hilary and Chelsea Clinton around the Acropolis and Agora in Athens some years ago. I had previously studied under John's sister, Margo, during my semester abroad in college with Lake Forest's program in Greece. During my sojourn with ASCSA, I served as an assistant to the Lake Forest professor--a minister--while his class was on Crete. I will always cherish my time with ASCSA. Some years later, I returned to Greece with my family, on a trip that served as a memorial for my father, who died in 1986. We went to the School, and they were helpful in planning our extensive journey around the country. A member of ASCSA is a member for life. As an alumna, I still receive their newsletters--or I did until I was forced into hiding because of a violent crime committed against me and mine. [...]
So much for the accuracy of Wikipedia's contributors. As I say, these erroneous and malicious contentions regarding ASCSA have--for now at least--been confined to the Discussion Page at Wiki. They may, however, raise their ugly heads again, because the harpies there continue to revert the article back to its error-filled predecessors.
� 2006 Acharya S
PROTOCOL No. 12 Control of the Press
1. The word "freedom," which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows -
2. Freedom is the right to do what which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.
3. We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? The produce of publicity, which nowadays is a source of heavy expense owing to the necessity of censoring it, will be turned by us into a very lucrative source of income to our State: we shall lay on it a special stamp tax and require deposits of caution-money before permitting the establishment of any organ of the press or of printing offices; these will then have to guarantee our government against any kind of attack on the part of the press.
For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy. Such measures as stamp tax, deposit of caution-money and fines secured by these deposits, will bring in a huge income to the government. It is true that party organs might not spare money for the sake of publicity, but these we shall shut up at the second attack upon us. No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification. I BEG YOU TO NOTE THAT AMONG THOSE MAKING ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO BE ORGANS ESTABLISHED BY US, BUT THEY WILL ATTACK EXCLUSIVELY POINTS THAT WE HAVE PRE-DETERMINED TO ALTER.
WE CONTROL THE PRESS
4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.
5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....
6. Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits .... All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest....
FREE PRESS DESTROYED
7. We turn to the periodical press. We shall impose on it, as on all printed matter, stamp taxes per sheet and deposits of caution-money, and books of less than 30 sheets will pay double. We shall reckon them as pamphlets in order, on the one hand, to reduce the number of magazines, which are the worst form of printed poison, and, on the other, in order that this measure may force writers into such lengthy productions that they will be little read, especially as they will be costly. At the same time what we shall publish ourselves to influence mental development in the direction laid down for our profit will be cheap and will be read voraciously. The tax will bring vapid literary ambitions within bounds and the liability to penalties will make literary men dependent upon us. And if there should be any found who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions. Before accepting any production for publication in print, the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations on the subject treated of.
8. Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.
9. In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.
10. In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.
11. In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.
12. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.
13. In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.
14. THESE ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, NAMELY, THAT OUR SUBJECTS WILL BE CONVINCED TO THE EXISTENCE OF FULL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SO GIVE OUR AGENTS AN OCCASION TO AFFIRM THAT ALL ORGANS WHICH OPPOSE US ARE EMPTY BABBLERS, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders.
ONLY LIES PRINTED
15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it .... WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.
16. Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs.
17. Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press, there are forms which reveal masonic solidarity in acting on the watchword: all organs of the press are bound together by professional secrecy; like the augurs of old, not one of their numbers will give away the secret of his sources of information unless it be resolved to make announcement of them. Not one journalist will venture to betray this secret, for not one of them is ever admitted to practice literature unless his whole past has some disgraceful sore or other .... These sores would be immediately revealed. So long as they remain the secret of a few the prestige of the journalist attacks the majority of the country - the mob follow after him with enthusiasm.
18. Our calculations are especially extended to the provinces. It is indispensable for us to inflame there those hopes and impulses with which we could at any moment fall upon the capital, and we shall represent to the capitals that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the provinces. Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same - ours. WHAT WE NEED IS THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE IN THE PLENITUDE POWER, THE CAPITALS SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES STIFLED BY THE PROVINCIAL OPINION OF THE NATIONS, I.E., OF A MAJORITY ARRANGED BY OUR AGENTUR. What we need is that at the psychological moment the capitals should not be in a position to discuss an accomplished fact for the simple reason, if for no other, that it has been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the provinces.
19. WHEN WE ARE IN THE PERIOD OF THE NEW REGIME TRANSITIONAL TO THAT OF OUR ASSUMPTION OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY WE MUST NOT ADMIT ANY REVELATION BY THE PRESS OF ANY FORM OF PUBLIC DISHONESTY; IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE NEW REGIME SHOULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE SO PERFECTLY CONTENDED EVERYBODY THAT EVEN CRIMINALITY HAS DISAPPEARED ... Cases of the manifestation of criminality should remain known only to their victims and to chance witnesses - no more.