[R-G] Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

[Nicholas Morcinek]

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:   The 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. .

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

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


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

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

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

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who
stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational
and complete examination of any chain ofevidence which would hang them.
Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with
lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit,
such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the
same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined
and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not
well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these
time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT
BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players
themselves understand the rules of the game. 

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links
in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times,
to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they
are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are
considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the
method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand
that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth,
regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify
against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual
evidence that the testimony itself  IS a lie renders it completely invalid. 

Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact,
it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument)
is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who
does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the
past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links
would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the
matter will merely be supportive. 

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper
letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type
has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of
discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to
become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution --
very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a
sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where
such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially
if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role
-- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept,
the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible
future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early
successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique
application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted.
They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything
up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or
investigative writer. Anything less renders 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   (see permissions
statement at end):