It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Disinformation agents will play the part

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:05 PM
Iv been hearing folks yap on about disinformation agents the day I joined here, which was over 2 years ago. Every time its this same assumption, that there are disinformation agents on their thread paying a attention to the typical conspiracy theories that rarely venture out into the mainstream in any case. Now the one thing I dont get, apart from this assumption that there are government agents arguing on internet forums, is this notion that the disinformation agent is always the objective one. I mean you would have to be either completely ignorant to constantly assume this or purposefully using this label as an excuse to attack a person in disagreement with you. I mean are we to assume for all the credit we give these guys that they are dumb enough to object all the time?

The effective disinformation agent, if one existed, will know that in order to fool the masses and mislead them, they will have to be one of them. That doesnt merely mean they will present themselves as as "one of you", they will also act like "one of you". The effective disinformation agent will most likely be the very individual that will accuse the nay sayers to assure trust. The most effective way to mislead the people from certain information is to pollute that information with more disinformation. Im saying that the disinformation agent will most likely be the very person you readily agree with, but whos story is somewhat different from yours, even if its over the same basis.

I think we should be careful to assume objectiveness or skepticism is synonymous with disinformation. Disinformation can come through in any way, through anywhere. To me the most effective form of disinformation is to play the part of the truth seeker only to mislead from the core story. I think its well apparent that conspiracy denialists are not much taken lightly on this website, hence common sense would push us to assume the most effective way is to "play the part of the truth seeker".

As ATSers, as conspiracy theorists we are all skeptics and objective for a reason though, so this entire assumption of who disinformation agents are is rather hypocritical in my opinion. Its also an excuse for people to snipe because they cannot debate any further.

I'd like to hear other opinions from ATSers on my analysis, my theory.

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:49 PM
there's more than one way to skin the truth. a multi-pronged attack is the order of the day.
nothing is cut and dry, black and white in the info war.

because, as goebbels or some other expert lying arsehole said, "repeat a lie loudly and often enough, and it will be accepted as truth". (not verbatim, but that's the jist.)

this is the type of disinfo agent i see the most.

there are the fringe type disinfo agents.... express some theory so outlandish you'd have to be REALLY open minded or completely crazy to buy into. (even if the theory is TRUE, lol!!) the "well poisoners".
there are the similiar but watered down "doubt sowers". this type will appear to agree with you at first, but will use spin to sway arguments CLOSER to the lie.
there are just plain folk who are thinking aloud and appear to be one of the above two, or one of the next.
the "authoritarian" uses published theories and "facts" and will not recognize any fact or reasoning that disagrees with it.
and, then, there are straight out liars that will state bold-faced lies as facts (usually uncheckable facts).

i don't want to think about it too much, 'cause it makes me feel dirty to get into the mind of "the enemy", but, things are just simply not that simple in the infowars. if you want to get into the trenches, you must trust no one, and that means not even yourself, sometimes. keep the "truth" as a fuzzy haze of probability and plausibility, and only hold onto "facts" which are cross-correlated from different sources.

and, ROCK ON!!!

posted on Dec, 4 2009 @ 01:10 AM
Read this thread as it offers some insight into the topic:


log in