"Among The Truthers", Straus, the Protocols, and the Chutzpah Maneuver

[Joe King]

I can think of one difference. Book apoligized. Joe King tossed elementary school level sociopathy at me.

The only thing I "tossed" at you is the fact that the type of posting I referred to is obviously permitted. If it's good enough for one, {Book} it's good enough for all.....which includes me too.

So get over it already.

[keehah]

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)
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>

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 ledastray 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 anydiscussion 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.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation ...

[keehah]

The only thing I "tossed" at you is the fact that the type of posting I referred to is obviously permitted. If it's good enough for one, {Book} it's good enough for all.....which includes me too.

So get over it already.

What is 'it' I need to get over?

Book apologized [earlier in this tread]. You make claims there is something 'over' me (you) that I have to accept.

[Joe King]

Book apologized. You just make claims there is something 'over' me (you) that I have to accept.

To who?
...and I'm not "over" anyone. What makes you think that? You and I have equal Rights.

[mick silver]

who said you have equal Rights some law that was forced onto others

[Joe King]

That's what the Constitution does.....guarentees all of us get our Rights. At least us Americans, anyways. If you were born here, that includes you too.

[keehah]

I my country I have no such rights. More specifically, in a country will rules specifiaclly enforced in attempts to take away the right to respond to Joe King's favoured sematics.

It does not limit me (or others) once I am 'over it'. What it limits is first awakening of broken minds the Kings feast on.

I had to leave Boston when the unconstitutional airport prisoner training became too psychologically destructive once I was aware we had lost too much of our freedom and I decided it was time to relocate from large cities for a better quality of life (more specifically to live in a place where the quality of life was not noticeably dropping each year). Although all the flying was a corporate waste of resources regardless.

[Joe King]

You'll get no arguement from me on that one, and you are free to live wherever you want.

[PatColo]

Monday, August 1, 2011

Tuesday's guest: "Towers of Deception" author Barrie Zwicker


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nMi0TomPoo...ie_zwicker.gifTuesday, August 2nd, 9-10 a.m Pacific (noon Eastern) on NoLiesRadio.org (archived here a few hours after broadcast):

Barrie Zwicker, author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11, discusses the latest episode of the media cover-up: Jonathan Kay's book Among the Truthers, a condescending 100%-ad-hominem attack on the truth movement. (Listen to my interview with Jonathan Kay here, and my discussion of Kay's book with Anthony Hall and Joshua Blakeney here.)

We'll also be discussing the state of the truth movement in general, and the upcoming Toronto Hearings in particular.

Listen here: http://noliesradio.org/archives/35718 - First thing you need to do at that NLR page is hit PAUSE on their live-stream console near the top-right of the page, which autoplays when you open the page, . Then you hit PLAY on the console on the left side of the page, below the radio show's title.

[mick silver]

back up ........................................