Welcome to the Unhypnotize Truth Community!
A great place to discuss conspiracies, UFOs, NWO, truth, reality and enlightenment.

• » Conspiracies Discussions
• » UFOs and Extraterrestrial
• » Spiritual and Paranormal
• » World and Alternative News

Its time to wake up to the global conspiracy...and move beyond...
Our community is here to spread truth, discuss the Global Conspiracy and the world wide Truth Movement!

YES! I want to register for free right now!
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: 25 Rules of Disinformation

  1. #1
    Moderator UHF Moderator Rank Denise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Toronto, Canada
    Rep Power

    25 Rules of Disinformation

    Source: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/short/disinfo.html.

    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.
    [add: Use the derogatory terms 'space beams' and 'rabid no-planers', then associate these with the terms 'wild accusations' and 'ad hominem attacks'. (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    [add example: 'But space beams don't explain the presence of sulfur', (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    [add: Use names like 'rabid no-planers', 'space beams', 'space beamers'. (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    [add example: "I haven't seen any evidence of pulverization on Judy Wood's web site." (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    [add example: 'Thermite is available on ebay and it is untracable, so I guess we'll never know who did it." (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    [add example: 'Exactly how much energy would be required to pulverize the WTC Towers?' The authors of the DEW paper are asked this on a regular basis as if there is a question as to whether or not the WTC was destroyed. But, those with other theories who ask this question feel no need to answer the same question themselves. (JW, 2007)]

    15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
    [add: Show a photo of a toasted car on FDR Drive and then emphasize how well "thermite fits the data". (JW, 2007)]

    16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
    [add: We are frequently reminded to pine for the evidence we don't have (the missing steel) instead of looking at the evidence we do have (photos). (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    [add example: Thermite cannot explain the cylindrical holes in WTC6 and the toasted cars, so that data must be ignored. (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    [add example: 'We have new data (from mysterious and secret samples and test methods) that show strong evidence of possible ___'. (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    [add example: 'If not able to take over 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth,' then start a new group, 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice' and establish a new "truth." (But, isn't truth its own defense?)]

    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.
    [add example: Why would a group of folks want to destroy the organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and drag it out for many months with multiple emails a day proposing endless negotiations with no intention of following through on any of them? (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    [add example: Murder the student of a prominent 9/11 researcher. (JW, 2007)]

    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.
    You know they are listening to you but they can't hear you.

  2. #2

    Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

    This is seen in so many forums I visit, I can now spot a troll or disinformation agent on almost their first post. They are not fooling me and most others I know can see right though them....
    Energy flows where attention goes...

  3. #3
    Active UHF Member Active Member Rank White Rabbit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Chelmsford, England
    Rep Power

    Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

    Great post Denise, this threads need to be stickyed....

    Watch for trolls!!!
    Take your blinders off...

  4. #4
    Moderator UHF Moderator Rank Denise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Toronto, Canada
    Rep Power

    Re: 25 Rules of Disinformation

    I have stickyed the thread, i hope this will keep it out in the open for everyone to learn from...

    I have also stickyed this one:
    Last edited by Denise; October 3rd, 2011 at 12:22 AM.
    You know they are listening to you but they can't hear you.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 15th, 2011, 12:51 PM
  2. [Rant] 4-Year-Old Able To Be Sued, NY Judge Rules
    By ricklbert in forum Eye Openers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 8th, 2010, 09:26 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 6th, 2010, 12:50 PM
  4. [Warning!] Rules and etc along those lines
    By mybodymyself in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 13th, 2010, 03:09 PM
  5. Waco: Rules of engagment
    By ricklbert in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 10th, 2009, 12:48 AM

Tags for this Thread