It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint."
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.
Example: "You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that Flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet for months."
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.
Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking Flight 800, a straw man is used. "If these exist, the public has not seen them."
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.
Example: "You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory."
How to Spot Them How can you and I spot the government-funded fakers who, so often, pretend to be patriots and lovers of liberty? Here are some clues. Ask yourself...
1. Do they focus on the elite powers-that-be in high places of government, OR instead, do they waste their time attacking fellow patriots in the Truth Movement?
2. Do they constantly relish writing and publishing trash and smears against patriot leaders and truthtellers?
3. Do they call in to Patriot talk shows and target for smears and vitriol the host, the guest, or other patriot leaders?
4. Do they insist that only those who currently are exposing this or that particular group (whether it’s the CFR, Trilateralists, Zionists, Jesuits, Neocons, Blacks, Russians, etc.) are trustworthy?
5. Do they rail at legitimate patriot authors and leaders, calling them names and accusing them of being greedy and "in it just to make money?" 6. Do they seize on virtually every word or statement made by a patriot leader or author, trying to find fault or some minor inaccuracy? (Note: One author I know was accused of being academically inept simply because he had misspelled the name "Zbigniew Brzezinski" in his otherwise excellent, 300-page book).
Originally posted by Paschar0
I'm sure they probably have an entire manual dedicated to it by now.