By
Anton Kaplenko
This list was originally written by H. Michael Sweeney, who holds the copyright to this material.
It's not new (originally published in 1997), but it's a valuable resource that shouldn't be forgotten.
An awareness of these methods & traits, as well as a heavy dose of skepticism, and knowledge of basic logic, will be tremendously helpful in debates of every type & level, but especially with respect to political discussions.
Original text in normal font, my commentary & additions
in italics.
Some examples that illustrate specific points are included.
The 25 Rules of Disinformation
Author's Note: The 1 rule and last 5 (or 6, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinformation 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.
- Exhibit "A": New York Times refused to discuss the Acorn scandal, until a week after 1000's of videos & stories have been published on the Internet.
- Exhibit "B": New York Times refused to discuss the Van Jones scandal, until multiple letters to the newspaper forced the controversial resolution.
- Exhibit "C": New York Times pub-ed with a half-assed apology / editorialsplaining of both.
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.
- Exhibit "A": Bernie Sanders, in full puppet mode, shouting down the
inquiry into Hillary Clinton's "mis-handling" of classified E-mails:
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.
- Exhibits "A" through "ZZZZZ": a multitude of raised concerns about violent religiously-motivated terrorism, or violent crime due to uncontrolled immigration, being shouted down as "Islamophobia" or "Xenophobia" by those unwilling to discuss the issues. See also: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage.
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 or reasoning - simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, since that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
- Exhibit "A": nearly every "Letter To The Editor" section of every major newspaper in the country.
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.
Also called the "Incomplete Solution" tactic.
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.
- Exhibit "A": Barack Obama's college transcripts, publication record, etc - still unavailable after 7 years.
- Exhibit "B": Vince Foster, also unavailable, but in a different manner, since July 20, 1993.
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.
- Exhibit "A": many discussions of 2nd Amendment rights getting sidetracked with issues such as suicide prevention, mental health in general, the apparent negative correlation between the strength of gun control laws and incidence of violent crime in cities like Chicago and Baltimore, which, in all fairness, could be due to economic factors, racial tensions... see what I did there?
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."
- Exhibit "A": Rule 12 from Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" - "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
- Exhibit "B": CNBC debate moderator John Harwood asking Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump whether his campaign is a "comic-book version".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. (AK:
Or a variant of the "demand complete solutions" rule - reject proof as insufficient to cover every single aspect of the debated issue, even if proof itself is valid/complete.)
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.
- Exhibit "A" (humorous):
- "Candidate 1, what was the name of the ship that sank after hitting an iceberg?" - "The Titanic"
- "Candidate 2, how many people died as a result of that disaster?" - "1,500 or so"
- "Candidate 3, what were their names?"
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.
See also: ACORN, SPLC, CAIR.
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 disinformation players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
8 Traits of the Disinformationalist
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) Coincidentality.
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 un-acceptance. 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.
P.S. The 1st paragraph of the introduction to Michael Sweeney's 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.
SOURCES:
- Original 25 Ways of Disinformation & 8 Traits Of The Disinformationalist - Copyright 1997, 2000 H. Michael Sweeney (HMS@proparanoid.com).
- 25 Ways of Disinformation & 8 Traits Of The Disinformationalist: Vigilant Citizen, May 24, 2011.
Retrieved Nov 02, 2015 from http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-disinformation/
- New York Times Apology: New York Times, "Tuning In Too Late", Sept 26, 2009.
Retrieved Nov 02, 2015 from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html?_r=0
- Rules for Radicals: Best of Beck, "Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals", undated.
Retrieved Nov 02, 2015 from http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals
- Donald Trump "Comic Book" comment: Business Insider, "Donald Trump's first debate question: 'Is this a comic-book version of a presidential campaign?'", Oct 28, 2015.
Retrieved Nov 02, 2015 from http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-confronted-by-john-harwood-2015-10
PERSONS OF INTEREST:
