D IS IN F O RM A T ION vs. T R U T H Back to Home Page
Under reconstruction due to INFOwar Hacking - not all links operable
Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back
Traits of The Disinformationalist:
The Short Version: 25 Rules and 8 Traits
Ways To Suppress Truth:
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.NET>
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) 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 evaluation... 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 an 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 of evidence 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 led astray 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.
This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.
Subscribe to The Professional Paranoid Newsletter
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
|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 any discussion 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 later 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. 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. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):
Twenty-Five 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.
Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz 'confession' testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby's newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.
There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and
can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target
any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case,
it would be the entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author
is relatively certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case
from among those having intelligence community ties.
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.'
You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high
opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby
Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse
of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why
do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2
- become incredulous and indignant)?
'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.'
You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge
reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and
a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen
Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover
up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced,
it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative
light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's
credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you
can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found
on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be
considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing
the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation
tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?
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. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: 'If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don't exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit
and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly
natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable
time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect
to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should
know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation
tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?'
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.'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt
by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight
is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and
stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their
veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding
slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against
the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly
in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of
such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling
Example: ''This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.' Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments
or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are
worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to
be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading
'this crap', why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose
of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?'
Example: 'With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt
as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly
fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what
has been presented are 'lies', why not simply so illustrate? Why do you
refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule
6 - question motives)?'
'You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your
own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also
fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite 'Jane's-like'
information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do
you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 8 - invoke authority)?'
Example: 'Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the
issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent
than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse
to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play
Example: 'Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the
issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant
to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?'
Example: 'Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the
true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy.
Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards
called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm
and fuzzy it makes us feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important
matters being discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use
of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back
Example: 'I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up.'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely
evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it
a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at
a time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?'
Example: 'The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards
logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they
knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom
testimony 'confession' by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial
between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict.
THAT, would have been the biggest story of the Century, but they didn't
print it, did they? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?'
Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'
You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary
to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative
attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand
alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while
it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address
the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete
Example: 'The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.'
The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps,
Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was eloquently
defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus
rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even
though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand
it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually
be to cite the Magic Bullet. 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's
Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic
bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has been
not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and
in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you.
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 15 - fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?'
Example: 'You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?' This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.
There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons,
unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the
event to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog
where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... 'You are avoiding
the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the
matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such
as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence.
The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why
do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?'
Example: 'There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.' Assistant's response. 'You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on...' One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one...
'You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade
discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional
response to a new topic -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly.
If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion,
as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics
NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?'
Example: 'You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.' After a drawing an emotional response: 'Ohhh... I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help...'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to
draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you
have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here
it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you
can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose
here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues
by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize,
and goad opponents)?'
Example: 'All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!'
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for
us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post,
Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew
Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York
Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press
-- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter.
Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of
the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York
Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner,
the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators,
or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part
of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter,
and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as
good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Then you demand us to
produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held
by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell
us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite
tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government
statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address
the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof
presented, demand impossible proofs)?'
Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy 'confession', since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see below.)
This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such
as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in
time... 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information
is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As
revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court
in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James
McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination
of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator
whose 'Solidarist confession' was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation
of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to address the issues by
use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)?'
Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.
There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain
loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any
possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result,
a new Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials
knew in advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number
of new facts which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have
done the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such
as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as CIA's
METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand
Jury process, by they way.
Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read The Professional Paranoid or Phsychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control.
Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of
the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization,
you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.
Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about -- or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing?
The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the
true issues alive and point out that the 'news flap' or other evasive tactic
serves the interests of your opponents.
Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.
You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim
of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create
for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in
the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence
information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous
pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by
this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative
is to cave in or run (same thing.)
Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.
You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus
on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as
part of a deliberate cover up.
Note: There are
other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others
are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional
disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
(Revised April 2000 - formerly SEVEN Traits)
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.
I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:
Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.
Return to Conspiracy
Return to Home Page