Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The 25 Rules of Spreading DisInformation (A Must Read For All ATSers)

page: 1
21

log in

join
+6 more 
posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
This is Abovetopsecret.com, and where there are conspiracy theories there are disinformation agents. I ask you though, do you know what disinformation is? Do you know how it is spread?


dis⋅in⋅for⋅ma⋅tion
   /dɪsˌɪnfərˈmeɪʃən, ˌdɪsɪn-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dis-in-fer-mey-shuhn, dis-in-]

–noun
+False information, as about a country's military strength or plans, publicly announced or planted in the news media, esp. of other countries.
+Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation: "He would be the unconscious channel for a piece of disinformation aimed at another country's intelligence service" (Ken Follett).
+Dissemination of such misleading information.
+Misinformation that is deliberately disseminated in order to influence or confuse rivals (foreign enemies or business competitors etc.)

Origin:
1965–70; dis- 1 + information, as trans. of Russ dezinformátsiya < F désinform(er) to misinform + Russ -atsiya ≪ L -ātiō


In the terms of ATS.com disinformation and disinfo agents are those who spread falsehoods of any subject in order to confuse any who read said subject.

A classic example of disinformation is known as Operation Fortitude. During World War II, The Allies deliberately leaked information that a large invasion force would be coming from Kent, England. Where-as the truth was the main force would be attacking the Normandy Beachhead to the far south.

For a more modern view of disinformation history all you need do is type "modern day disinformation" into google.com and find a wealth of sites devoted to the subject.


Now on with what you came to read!

The 25 Rules of Spreading Disinformation

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" 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 so 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 with denial 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. 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 them 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. 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 loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that 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 items 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 may require 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 an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (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) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

Continued

[edit on 5/9/2009 by Tentickles]




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
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 proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

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.

There you have it the 25 rules of Spreading disinformation.
I for one enjoyed rule # 13 the most.

Ask yourselves... have you used these rules before? Have you been so hell bent on proving someone wrong that you resorted to disinformation?

Also ask yourselves this one last thing... how many apply to 9/11?



These 25 rules are the brain-child of H. Michael Sweeney. I suggest you look the man up and read his papers.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Thank you for this. As I read I see that ATS is full of this tho I honestly believe most do not realize that is what they are doing.

I can't count the threads I have left because it has been subverted by people who take the opposite side and never offer a shred of evidence in their favor. The result is accusations back and forth and the original intent of the thread is lost. I would love to see moderators adopt some of these guidelines.

edit to say S&F for you. Good job.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by liveandlearn]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandlearn
 


Yeah, it's very easy to create disinformation without realizing you are doing so.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Tentickles
 


Yup... I have the article book marked but my friend... You may want to do a search before you post an article.... These particular rules are well known and have been posted here several times.... and while I am sure it may help some noobs, any serious 911 fighter knows these rules and we debate by them....still.... trolls will be trolls....

I stopped fighting those fights. I know the truth and I know the government has propaganda agents out here on the net to distort the truth.... and worst of all, I have seen them recruit regular undecided folk online.

The rules of dis-information offer no advice for that even when applied and exposed properly.....


Anyways... I just wanted to recommend to always use the search option before posting... and to say thanks for bringing it up again and continue to deny ignorance



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
S&F

Thanks for posting this bit of info !

And I would tend to agree , we see this from time to time here on ATS and its very frustrating and in some cases can draw an unsuspecting person right into the think of things .

This post is a good thing to take a look back on from time to time to keep us thinking of these important issues .

[edit on 10-5-2009 by Max_TO]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Got to love his work on truth supression. Nice Post.

You left out the 8 traits of a Dis-info agent. So I'll add to your thread if thats cool.

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 commentatorbecome 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.
www.whale.to...



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Thank you for adding them. My post was getting a little long and we know how most of us have short attention spans when it comes to walls of text.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Tentickles
 


No prob.
Yeah, I know what you mean on the Attention span, and long posts can be a turn off for some. But hey, if we want to learn, we have to work at it.

OP, you probably have these but i'll add these for others to peruse at leisure.
www.proparanoid.net...

activistnyc.wordpress.com...
This one is relevant to many topical threads and posts here at ATS and highlights, to me anyway, how we all may end up playing a role in spreading dis-info simply due to being enthusiastic conspiracy theorists.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Fantastic!
This should be used to call out bad arguments here on ATS.

"WARNING: You have resorted to item __ of The 25 Rules of Spreading DisInformation! Please check your argument and try again later."

That should cut down on some of the ignorance.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Seems to me that the term disinformation that's been released to the public is misinformation. False information released to the public is propaganda.
Misinformation released to military or acronym person ell to flush out spies is disinformation.
Please understand you are not important enough to dis inform.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zealott
 


interesting opinion there but can you state the facts for your argument please?
Disinformation is very old, and not to be used as just a modern term. There are examples of disinformation being used as far back in history as you can look.

There are instances of Disinformation being used by the Bible Stories.

"Disinformation has been around since the serpent sold Eve on the fateful apple."—Elizabeth Pond


Bible Study

It has also been used to promote one of the most famous explorers. Columbus. It is widely known that he discovered the North American Continent, which is in fact disinformation. Columbus didnt discover North America, it can be argued that a host of other peoples did. Including: Native Americans, Vikings, Mayan cultures, Hawaiian peoples...

Columbus didnt discover America



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I always appreciate your insight but your avatar gives me the creeps. I have to avert my eyes from it while I read what you write.

I know 2 disinfo guys here at ATS...they always do everything they can to derail threads on very specific topics. Thank you for the info.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
I have a much shorter and easier list of how to spread disinfo.

1> Disagree with someones theory



Done, you are now a disinfo agent.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeHasNoName
I have a much shorter and easier list of how to spread disinfo.

1> Disagree with someones theory



Done, you are now a disinfo agent.


Disagreeing with someone's theory isnt disinfo in itself. Just how you go about in disagreeing with that theory.
If it is an honest well thought out response with proof to back it up, that isnt disinfo that's just an opinion.
If it is a response of obvious intolerance... need i say more?






top topics



 
21

log in

join