Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..
There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a
internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each
technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can
be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled
forum.'
## Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a
forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.'
In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned
on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum
postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The
second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be
called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public.
To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public
view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and
fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2
line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum
list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly
out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the
posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By
this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading
unrelated and non-issue items.
## Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all
the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop
a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a
fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the
truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK
PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done
then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your
favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is
IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed
reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies
are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is
slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop
the same position as you, and if their position is against you their
opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some
cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your
disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort'
the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'
## Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very
useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive
issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE
BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract
and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively
stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of
gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop
researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can
be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture
and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it
becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would
desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment
of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first
determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the
wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship
by a forum moderator.
## Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'
Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the
psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence
that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive
environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the
number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical
information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite
weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what
they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what
percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal
weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form
members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the
replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and
effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.
## Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'
Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are
more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals
are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately
incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in
the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and
possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires
posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively
abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of
the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two
being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be
then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement
to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and
the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it
is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your
own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the
authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it
may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined
violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real
intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.
## Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a
forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can
then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable
postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure
and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate
victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general
public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on
the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum
into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and
or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can
be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a
forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to
collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used
for your control for your agenda purposes.
## CONCLUSION
Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants
DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the
operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At
this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false
legal precedence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline.
This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable
to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist
attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized
and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of
infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
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 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 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 the kitchen.
**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 commentator become
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) 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.
One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a
group that does all the wrong things. Why?
1. The message doesn't get out.
2. A lot of time is wasted
3. The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4. Nothing good is accomplished.
FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they
have phoney activist organizations established. Their purpose is to
prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in
this country. Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any
ethnic background. They can be male or female. The actual size of the
group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential
the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and
saboteurs. This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down,
foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists. It is
the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus
keeping him/her under control.
In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:
"You're dividing the movement." [Here, I have added the psychological
reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people] This invites
guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents
begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of
"dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication,
(and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist,
he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced
that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly
dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and
that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's
amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the
activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly
declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally,
suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by
rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean
it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and
so forth.
The agent will tell the activist: "You're a leader!" This is designed to
enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration
of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she
identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of
the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.
This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the
agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the
activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's
vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle
self-concepts of the activist.
Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most
vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with
the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their
competency, autonomy, or knowledge.
The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for
the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's
self-concepts.
The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the
activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a
more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the
activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of
"twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the
perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves
considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in
the service of their agent/handler.
The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is
enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through
his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic
investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep
inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto
the agent who is "mirroring" them.
The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this
feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement
setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis
the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic
splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may
render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist.
They literally "lose touch with reality."
Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a
good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and
consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers"
endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to
the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.
Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite
visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing,
fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a
strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's
narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.
The agent's expression of such simulated affects may be quite compelling
to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.
It can usually be identified by two events, however:
First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and
is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will
be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by
the agent.
As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will
occur: The agent will re-compensate much too quickly following such an
effective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the
play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the
moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another
activist/victim.
The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow
the leader" is a waste of time.
A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk
a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved
discussions.
Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:
1. To disrupt the agenda
2. To side-track the discussion
3. To interrupt repeatedly
4. To feign ignorance
5. To make an unfounded accusation against a person.
Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit
a person in the eyes of all other group members.
Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will...
1. Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2. Print flyers in English only.
3. Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4. Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5. Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6. Confuse issues.
7. Make the wrong demands, compromising the real goal.
8. Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may
accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or
other amusement to slow down the activist's work.
## Provocateurs
1. Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to
stop the movement.
2. Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in
trouble.
3. Encourage militancy.
4. Want to taunt the authorities.
5. Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6. Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be
non-violent.
7. Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal
with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.
## Informants
1. Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2. Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3. Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4. Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his
or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.
## Recruiting
Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive
dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.
Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political
parties or movements set up by agents.
## Surveillance
ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.
At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very
good activist!
## Scare Tactics
They use them.
Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to
disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them
(via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement
and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will
plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will
plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send
incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more;
they will do whatever society will allow.
This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the
lives of sincere an dedicated activists.
If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.
COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It
is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the
freedom of information act.
The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose,
disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who
the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National
Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the
vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring
down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based
defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these
techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a
mere token opposition party.
**1. Dummy up.** If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't
happen.
**2. Wax indignant.** This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.
**3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild
rumors.**" If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able
to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
(If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply
"paranoid" or "hysterical.")
**4. Knock down straw men.** Deal only with the weakest aspects of the
weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild
rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear
to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
**5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase,"
"ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger."** Be sure,
too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing
their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its
defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any
of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own
"skeptics" to shoot down.
**6. Impugn motives.** Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting
strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply
pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared
to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably,
are not).
**7. Invoke authority.** Here the controlled press and the sham
opposition can be very useful.
**8. Dismiss the charges as "old news.**"
**9. Come half-clean.** This is also known as "confession and avoidance"
or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the
impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively
harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires
the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one
originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position
need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
**10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as
ultimately unknowable.**
**11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance.**
With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant.
E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince
Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They
haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on
this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press
who would report the leak.
**12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.** E.g. If
Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
**13. Change the subject.** This technique includes creating and/or
publicizing distractions.
**14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of
them.** This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
**15. Baldly and brazenly lie.** A favorite way of doing this is to
attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but
anonymous, source.
**16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges
"expose" scandals and champion popular causes.** Their job is to
pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to
pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
**17. Flood the Internet with agents.** This is the answer to the
question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour
on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and
harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough
in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think
refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or
dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but,
obviously, it is not.
