(hears thrown objects hitting the walls and yelling, sticks his head in the door and finds an insult argument in play and the subject is proof of paid
There is a very active government agency,
that has an entire department which takes up almost an entire floor, (right around 112,500 sq ft)
that has massive funding, and the latest and greatest technology,
who not only gather and monitor all forms of communication but
also respond to and release all forms of information as well.
It is done anywhere you'll find people.
It is done in any scenario you will find people communicating.
It is most popular and active during pre-conflict and initial conflict situations/locations,
It is selective and deliberate in employ.
Although 'everything' is of interest, not 'everything' is tracked.
There are three internet departments within one electronic division,
Foreign, Domestic, Government.
There are then specialized departments within,
Internet forums for example.
Depending on your position and level, you will either monitor, (hundreds of employees)
monitor and respond, (dozens of employees)
or design and launch. (a select group containing very few).
Employee turnover is nil to none, the pay and benefits are amazing,
the responsibilities increase expotentially from level to level as do the stressors,
exiting the agency at elevated levels of employment is also very stressful and involves procedure and extended post employ monitoring.
No doubt that words within this post have triggered a monitor,
No doubt that words within this thread have triggered a reply,
No doubt at all that this site has incurred design/launch.
And finally, no doubt, should it be desired, my identity is fully known within minutes of me posting.
Those asking for proof that such activity exists are either genuine in their request because they really dont understand the depth of the operations
going on around them,
or are monitor/reply.
One will be satisfied with a W2 or pay stub which they'll never see,
the other....................Already knows.
Below is some good informative reading,
(and no, I do not work for the national softball association)
How to detect paid disinfo agents on different Forums?
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo
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.
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' 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.
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 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.
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, 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.
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
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 theircharacter 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
Eight 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 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:
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.