EDUC Interesting OP on Disruption on the Internet

[dstraito]

How to Spot – and Defeat – Disruption on the Internet

Posted on August 13, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog
The 15 Rules of Web Disruption

David Martin’s Thirteen Rules for Truth Suppression, H. Michael Sweeney’s 25 Rules of Disinformation (and now Brandon Smith’s Disinformation: How It Works) are classic lessons on how to spot disruption and disinformation tactics.
We’ve seen a number of tactics come and go over the years. Here are the ones we see a lot of currently.

1. Start a partisan divide-and-conquer fight or otherwise push emotional buttons to sow discord and ensure that cooperation is thwarted. Get people fighting against each other instead of the corrupt powers-that-be. Use baseless caricatures to rile everyone up. For example, start a religious war whenever possible using stereotypes like “all Jews are selfish”, “all Christians are crazy” or “all Muslims are terrorists”. Accuse the author of being a gay, pro-abortion limp-wristed wimp or being a fundamentalist pro-war hick when the discussion has nothing to do with abortion, sexuality, religion, war or region. Appeal to people’s basest prejudices and biases. And – as Sweeney explains – push the author into a defensive posture:

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule … 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.
​

2. Pretend it’s hopeless because we’ll be squashed if we try. For example, every time a whistleblower leaks information, say “he’s going to be bumped off”. If people talk about protesting, organizing, boycotting, shareholder activism, spreading the real facts, moving our money or taking other constructive action, write things to scare and discourage people, say something like “we don’t have any chance because they have drones and they’ll just kill us if we try”, or “Americans are too stupid, lazy and greedy, so they’ll never help out.” Encourage people to be apathetic instead of trying to change things.


3. Demand complete, fool-proof and guaranteed solutions to the problems being discussed. For example, if a reporter breaks the story that the big banks conspired to rig a market, ask “given that people are selfish and that no regulation can close all possible loopholes … how are you going to change human nature?”, and pretend that it’s not worth talking about the details of the market manipulation. This discourages people from reporting on and publicizing the corruption, fraud and other real problems. And it ensures that not enough people will spread the facts so that the majority know what’s really going on.


4. Suggest extreme, over-the-top, counter-productive solutions which will hurt more than help, or which are wholly disproportionate to what is being discussed. For example, if the discussion is whether or not to break up the big banks or to go back on the gold standard, say that everyone over 30 should be killed because they are sell-outs and irredeemable, or that all of the banks should be bombed. This discredits the attempt to spread the facts and to organize, and is simply the web method of the provocateur.


5. Pretend that alternative media – such as blogs written by the top experts in their fields, without any middleman – are untrustworthy or are motivated solely by money (for example, use the derogatory term “blogspam” for any blog posting, pretending that there is no original or insightful reporting, but that the person is simply doing it for ad revenue).


6. Coordinate with a couple of others to “shout down” reasonable comments. This is especially effective when the posters launch an avalanche of comments in quick succession … the original, reasonable comment gets lost or attacked so much that it is largely lost.


7. Use an army of sock puppets. You can either hire low-wage workers in India or other developing countries to “astroturf” or – if you work for the government – you can use hire military personnel and subcontractors to monitor social media and “correct” information which you don’t like (and see this), or use software which allows you to quickly create and alternate between numerous false identities, each with their own internet address.


8. Censor social media, so that the hardest-hitting information is buried. If you can’t censor it, set up “free speech zones” to push dissent into dank, dark corners where no one will see it.


9. When the powers-that-be cut corners and take criminally reckless gambles with our lives and our livelihoods, protect them by pretending that the inevitable result - nuclear accidents, financial crises, terrorist attacks or other disasters – were “unforeseeable” and that “no could have known”.


10. Protect the rich and powerful by labeling any allegations of criminal activity as being a “conspiracy theory”. For example, when Goldman gets caught rigging markets, label the accusations as mere conspiracies.


The following 4 tactics from Sweeney are also still commonly used …


11. 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.

12. 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.


13. 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.


14. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so 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.

15. 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. 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 them 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.


Postscript: Over a number of years, we’ve found that the most effective way to fight disruption and disinformation is to link to a post such as this one which rounds up disruption techniques, and then to cite the disinfo technique you think is being used.
Specifically, we’ve found the following format to be highly effective in educating people in a non-confrontational manner about what the disrupting person is doing:

Good Number 1!
​

Or:

Thanks for that textbook example of Number 7!
​

(include the link so people can see what you’re referring to.)
The reason this is effective is that other readers will learn about the specific disruption tactic being used … in context, like seeing wildlife while holding a wildlife guide, so that one learns what it looks like “in the field”. At the same time, you come across as humorous and light-hearted instead of heavy-handed or overly-intense.
Try it … It works.




From -> Link

 

[dstraito]

Disinformation: How It Works

Disinformation: How It Works

There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation.

Propaganda was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control of information flow was easily directed. Rules were enforced with the threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed from the rigid socio-political structure. Those who had theological, metaphysical or scientific information outside of the conventional and scripted collective world view were tortured and slaughtered. The elites kept the information to themselves, and removed its remnants from mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was rediscovered.

With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most importantly the success of the American Revolution, elitists were no longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the barrel of a gun. The establishment of Republics, with their philosophy of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and thus maintaining their hold over the world without exposing themselves to retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was born.

The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an endless obsession for the establishment.

The goal was malicious, but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the truth in a Gordian Knot of misdirection and fabrication so elaborate that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight.

In modern times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has for the most part been accomplished. However, these methods also have inherent weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean of lies, evaporating it instantly.

In this article, we will examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies once and for all.

Media Disinformation Methods

The mainstream media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a public relations firm for corrupt officials and their Globalist handlers. The days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone (if they ever existed at all), and journalism itself has deteriorated into a rancid pool of so called “TV Editorialists” who treat their own baseless opinions as supported fact.

The elitist co-opting of news has been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing press. However, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal interpretation.

Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows:

Lie Big, Retract Quietly: Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is already too late, and a large portion of the population will not notice or care when the truth comes out.

Unconfirmed Or Controlled Sources As Fact: Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources, government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert” sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind faith.

Calculated Omission: Otherwise known as “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate.

Distraction, And The Manufacture Of Relevance: Sometimes the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of what the media does to bury it. When this occurs their only recourse is to attempt to change the public’s focus and thereby distract them from the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant story, and by reporting on it ad nauseum, cause many Americans to assume that because the media won’t shut-up about it, it must be important!

Dishonest Debate Tactics: Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on T.V. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media know they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in highly restrictive environments which put the guest on the defensive, and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts.

TV pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion of the lie as a tool for the “greater good”; essentially, a modern day Machiavelli. His “Rules for Radicals” were supposedly meant for grassroots activists who opposed the establishment and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics? In reality, his strategies are the perfect format for corrupt institutions and governments to dissuade dissent from the masses. Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition.
Alinsky’s Strategy: Win At Any Cost, Even If You Have To Lie

Alinsky’s tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions. Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:

1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.

We see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own movement as mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their perception of your power. How often have we heard this line: “The government has predator drones. There is nothing the people can do now…” This is a projection of exaggerated invincibility designed to elicit apathy from the masses.

2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.

Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a situation instead. Go off on tangents. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own position.

3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

The objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks, and distracts away from the broader moral question.

4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

“Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

The popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example; it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever, and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun helps your side stay motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement.

6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

See rule No. 5. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, it’s easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again.

7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.

8) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

This goes hand in hand with Rule No. 1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.

9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

The objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the campaign.

10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

As grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example, by labor movements or covert operations specialists) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grassroots movements and revolutions use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions and rebellions (look at Syria for a recent example).

11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer not just “a solution”, but THE solution. Obviously, no one person has “the” solution. When he fails to produce the miracle you requested, dismiss his entire argument and all the facts he has presented as pointless.

12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The target’s supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.

The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will likely see many if not all of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth.
Internet Disinformation Methods

Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly and openly being employed by private corporations as well governments, often for marketing purposes and for “public relations” (Obama is notorious for this practice). Internet “trolling” is indeed a fast growing industry.

Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:

1. Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the Web.

2. Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the think tank propagandists like the SPLC, which purports that Constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.

3. Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive Web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.

4. Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. When they post, their words feel strangely plastic and well rehearsed.

5. False Association: This works hand in hand with item No. 2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.” For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”; deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with racists and homegrown terrorists, because of the inherent negative connotations; and using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.

6. False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”

7. Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words.

Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.

Stopping Disinformation

The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs.

The truth is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society who have lost respect for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process.

The human psyche breathes on the air of truth. Without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance.

Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt: all things that lead to destruction. It can drive good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to diffuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed.


From -> Link

 

[dstraito]

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies

COINTELPRO 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 precidence 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.



from -> link

 

[dstraito]

Detecting Disinformation Agents

There are several types of disinformation agents, from high-profile ones who gain a lot of publicity and promote well-crafted stories, to low-level ones who serve to flood the Internet with less reputable claims. This document deals primarily with the former.

A disinformation agent will sometimes be someone who works directly for a larger entity (usually the government or major corporation) and uses a cover identity, but more often than not they will be someone who receives false information from someone who purports to be ‘in the know’, such as a government whistleblower. In other instances, they might just be someone who makes certain claims that tend to benefit those who keep dark secrets because it creates a sense of doubtfulness about those secrets, and confuses any chance of learning the truth. Whatever the case, they will be used because they’re willing to believe the information they’re given, and they’ll usually have or be provided with the right avenues and receive a greater than usual amount of promotion to ‘get the word out’. Often, they’ll be able to provide physical documents or other evidence that reveal certain truths to their story, but even these will not reveal the veracity of their entire story (nor are they necessarily legitimate). Other times, they’ll be able to provide verbal information that on later investigation by others will pan out, thus offering some legitimacy to what they claim. However, there will ALWAYS be unverifiable information that will be part of the foundation of their claims, and this information will more often than not be extraordinary in nature (e.g. beyond known science).

A disinformation agent will usually be given a scripted story to disseminate. This story will weave many truths with many falsehoods, so that these truths might be disregarded due to the inclusion of the falsehoods. Very often, these truths will simply be disregarded because they’re so far outside of our common understanding that they sound too outrageous to easily accept, and are hard – if not impossible – to prove. In such a case, the added falsehoods are meant to add to the seeming illegitimacy of the truths. This helps to turn away all but the most gullible people, who will be used to further increase the seeming absurdity of these planted falsehoods by the unscientific mindset these people generally have and the propensity to be carried away by imaginative ideas rather than to stay grounded in just those known truths that are provable.

A disinformation agent, particularly one who knows that they are disseminating false information, will rarely expand on their original information, and will be more interested in disseminating just the information they’ve been provided with. An unwitting disinformation agent, on the other hand, will usually be interested in investigating their own information further, and not be as compelled to stick to their original story over time as new revelations crop up.

It’s common for there to be a number of disinformation agents working simultaneously, either in secret collaboration or alone and unaware of each other’s true identity. One of their tactics is to engage in creating controversy between themselves, which only serves to disrupt the situation further and increase the uncertainty, while keeping their followers hoping something revealing might come of it.

Disinformation agents, whether witting or unwitting, will usually believe the story they tell, and this is a standard procedure in keeping secrets. These are cover stories that are fed to them with the purpose of compartmentalizing the knowledge and activities of the secret programs that they might actually be privy to. Virtually no one but those few people at the very top will ever know the full truth about the secret program.

The ultimate purpose of a disinformation agent is three-fold:

a) to create a sense of ridicule about anything that they include in their story so that even what is true will be not be believed by intelligent people,

b) to mislead those who are gullible enough to believe their story, and

c) to divert the efforts of those who seek to know the truth through further investigation.

Although disinformation agents are used to cover up the truth, their claims should not be written off completely, since they can still teach us something about the underlying truth that they’re meant to cover up.

To measure the level of truth within each of these individual stories, the unverifiable claims must be sorted out and then weighed against the verifiable claims. These two aspects of any person’s claims must be clearly understood before considering any further what they’re claiming.

To measure the claims that are being made by someone, it’s necessary to always pay attention to what they say and how they present it. For instance:

1) What percentage of their claims can be checked out, compared to what can’t?

2) What seems to be their motive for making their claims?

3) Do they act fairly and honestly during a discussion?

4) Do they act like they are beyond questioning?

5) Are they willing to provide further evidence of their claims when it’s asked for?

6) Do they claim to have special inside sources that gives them an edge on the facts?

7) Do they claim early on to only be interested in exposing what is going on at whatever cost, but then later blatantly withhold information?

8) Do they ever offer valid sources of information that would support some of what they say?

9) Do they admit when they’re only assuming something or speculating, or do they pass off everything they say as hard fact?

10) Do they often leave it for you to fill in what they aren’t saying, relying on you to use your imagination to make the connections between certain things?

11) How much trust do they expect you to put into what they say?

12) Do they attempt use emotional appeals to gain support for their claims, or do they stick to straight, unemotionally imbued information?

13) Do they convey a lot of fear by the way they describe things?

14) Do they spend an excessive amount of time going over less significant or more widely known information than they do going over the more significant aspects of their claims, or in discussing any new information they might claim to have?

14) Can they explain what they claim in a logical and scientific way that might offer the ability to test, or do they avoid those important aspects and rely instead on emotional appeal for persuasion?

15) Is the way they present themselves that of an honest, fair, and respectful person that can admit being wrong, or are there telltale quarks in their personality that might indicate otherwise?

16) Do they include terminology or phrases that are unusual, and can’t be found anywhere else where the same meaning applies? (I see this with almost every person I’ve come across that I’ve suspected of being a high-profile disinformation agent, and I have a suspicion that this terminology is purposely planted in order to track the spread of the disinformation from its original source, and to indicate what pieces of disinformation are being bought into and what aren’t. You can usually determine whether the phrases are legitimate or just made up by doing an Internet search for them, to see who else uses them.)

* * *

Here are some further pointers I found online (from ‘Disinformation Tactics of Shills & Online Trolls/Zombies’). These are common traits of low-level disinformation agents, although they usually fit high-profile ones as well:

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 Participation – 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 no 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 newsgroup 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.

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 – 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:

a) ANY newsgroup 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 NEWSGROUP ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

b) 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.

c) In the newsgroup example a) 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.

* * *

Further Notes

The purpose of disinformation is to confuse the facts about an issue as much as possible and leave so many false leads and possibilities that discovery of the truth becomes next to impossible to surmise. By the time any significant facts that would point to the truth can ever be ascertained, the greater part of what remains to be known will still be much greater, so that uncovering a few facts will make little difference. The best that this might lead to is that some people might realize what is true and what is false, but trying to convince anyone who’s willing to believe the disinformation is futile, because the disinformation is designed to draw in the type of person who negates logical reasoning and allows their emotions and imaginations to lead them in making decisions instead. On the other hand, anyone else you might try to convince will want either irrefutable objective proof, or at the very least, the acknowledgement of a trusted authority whom the greater public will believe in.

Disinformation campaigns build on or borrow from each other to keep the most successful falsehoods alive and use these in whatever way they can be to create new disinformation campaigns. Therefore, we see that the UFO/ET issue, which started one of the biggest disinformation campaigns that continues today, has been built on and borrowed from to incorporate other controversial issues, including psychism, time-travel, ancient astronaut theories, spirituality, metaphysics, demonology, mind-control, the NWO, and secret government technologies. If they want to cover up something, they create a disinformation campaign that relies on the more popularly accepted falsehoods of previous campaigns, and the more outrageous they happen to be, the better.

The underlying purpose of disinformation is to create confusion and distraction and thereby bury the light of truth deep beneath a pile of falsehoods, so it only helps the disinformers to put out as many claims as possible by as many people as possible. But in order to keep the truth hidden over a long time, the disinformation campaigns must also continue in one form or other, and this usually means finding new people with new stories to act as disseminators as old ones are ‘put out to pasture’ and dissolve into obscurity. These new recruits will lead the older campaign to new focal points of misdirection, such as we’ve seen happen with the initial UFO/ET issue leading to all sorts of rather extraordinary claims about certain aspects of witness contacts, sightings, and abductions. The underlying reason for building on this earlier disinformation campaign is because it worked so well, and continues to work well, in covering up a far more plausible but equally sinister truth.

 

[Flippper]

I don't have time to read this right now, hope it doesn't get lost on main, it looks very interesting.

 

[dstraito]

I don't have time to read this right now, hope it doesn't get lost on main, it looks very interesting.

I thought it had some valid points, things to be aware of to prevent or to help you limit being manipulated. You can see some of these attempts I think in the media and other places

 

[dstraito]

Must Read!!! “Disinformation”

Millions of Americans have had their thinking shaped by armies of Soviet/Russian disinformation agents.

Moscow, for decades, has been pumping lies into the West, that have now become received truths, even to many conservatives.

The CIA killed Kennedy (almost certainly the Cubans), American soldiers routinely committed atrocities in Vietnam (John Kerry helped spread these lies), the CIA trafficked crack cocaine into black communities, 9/11 was an “inside job”, Vladimir Putin is a Christian who will save Europe from the Muslims (he controls the Muslims) and most recently, the NSA is a danger to all Americans and should be stripped of its surveillance powers – all are examples of Moscow directed disinformation.

All are designed to turn Americans against their own country, to effectively turn patriotic Americans into unwitting agents of America’s enemies.

Now, former Romanian intelligence chief, Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking ever East Bloc defector, has written a must read book for all thinking Westerners.

Pacepa explains how the old Soviet Union and modern Russia employ thousands of operatives whose job it is to spread anti-American lies and half truths around the world.

The scope and sheer shameless evil of this program is breathtaking. Almost all of us have been influenced by Moscow’s disinformation themes. For many, including some who self-identify as patriots and conservatives, Moscow is able to guide their actions, by corrupting the information they receive.

This is not a historical problem. This is happening, on a grand scale, right here, right now. You are almost certainly, at least a partial victim of this diabolic enterprise.

From WND:

George Noory, host of the nation’s No. 1 nighttime radio talk show “Coast to Coast AM,” kicked off a marathon three-hour interview with WND Managing Editor David Kupelian and historian Ronald Rychlak on the wildly exotic subject of disinformation.

Rychlak is the co-author, and Kupelian the editor, of the much-talked-about new book, “Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism,” published by WND Books. Both Kupelian and Rychlak are also featured in the companion WND Films documentary, “Disinformation: The Secret Strategy to Destroy the West,” for which Kupelian helped write the script. The two-hour movie shot to the top of the Amazon bestseller list for film documentaries within two days of its June 25 release.

However, the main author of the “Disinformation” book – and the focal point of the movie – Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, could not appear on “Coast to Coast,” indeed, does not make any media appearances at any time, nor does he ever even appear in public as the highest ranking Soviet bloc spy chief ever to defect to America.

That’s because, at 84, Pacepa lives in the U.S. under a CIA-protective identity due to ongoing assassination threats and multi-million-dollar bounties on his head. As Kupelian said on “C2C,” “there’s a price to pay for turning your back on evil.”

Rychlak and Kupelian told Noory and his millions of loyal Coast to Coast AM listeners that Pacepa is a rare person – someone once involved with mass deception at the very highest levels of the vast Soviet bloc intelligence machine, and who, due to a crisis of conscience, “left the dark side” and defected to America. After doing so in 1978, Pacepa became a major asset to the America’s intelligence community. Indeed, the CIA has praised Pacepa’s cooperation for providing “an important and unique contribution to the United States,” and President Ronald Reagan (seen below holding Pacepa’s first book, “Red Horizons”) reportedly referred to it as “my bible for dealing with dictators.”

ronneeeeee

“Disinformation” includes the following remarkable revelations:

How destroying the reputation of good leaders has been developed into a high art and science.

How Pope Pius XII – a generation ago the world’s most high-profile Christian leader, who personally saved countless Jews from Hitler’s Holocaust – was transformed, through the magic of disinformation, into a Nazi sympathizer.

How Christianity and Judaism have been targeted for constant denigration and defamation through an ongoing campaign of disinformation.

How the Soviet bloc planted 4,000 agents of influence in the Islamic world, armed with hundreds of thousands of copies of the most infamous anti-Semitic book in history, to fan the flames of ancient Arab resentments against the U.S. and Israel and sow the seeds of anti-Semitism that would later bloom in the form of violence and terror toward Jews and Christians.

How the defamatory attacks on American soldiers John Kerry made before Congress upon his return from Vietnam – charges later discredited and repudiated – were identical to a contemporaneous KGB disinformation campaign concocted to turn Americans against their own leaders.

How supposedly respectable institutions like the World Council of Churches have long been infiltrated and controlled by Russian intelligence.

How much of the world came to believe that the U.S. government itself masterminded the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

How the Soviet Union has been transformed into the first intelligence dictatorship in history.

How disinformation is still very much alive in the age of Obama, remaining a powerful engine in the ongoing socialist transformation of America.

Former CIA director R. James Woolsey says this about “Disinformation”: “This remarkable book will change the way you look at intelligence, foreign affairs, the press, and much else besides.” And best-selling author and Cold War historian, Professor Paul Kengor, says simply: “Here is a work that many of us have been waiting for; a book that – dare I say – history has been waiting for.”

“Disinformation” is not for everyone. Most people can’t handle having their assumptions challenged to this degree.

from this -> Link

 

[Ben Sunday]

Excellent series of posts. Thanks.

Of course there are trolls of various intensity, disinformation-bad information galore and conspiracy theories up the wazoo. Hang around any significant website and you will make your own discoveries in that regard.

In the setting of weak or otherwise ineffective moderation or equally uncontrolled thread drift, it is also possible to simply drown in the bulls**t. One preposterous comment leads to twenty more and focus disappears. It is my personal opinion that this weakness accounts for much of the woo-woo brands of conspiracy. All a determined troll or disinfo artist needs is opportunity. Too often, they find it.

The flip side of this debate is when the problem children reign victorious and an entire forum goes from serious, informed discussion of any given topic becoming a graffiti wall - filled with either poorly or completely unsupported agit prop chained to dire consequences and rude person to person exchanges. A favorite tactic is to brand all non believers as "paid shills" or "fedgov informers". Isolation of those who fail to march to the appointed drummer usually follows. Angry barriers to debate are entirely unconstructive. Intellectual squalor only poisons the discussion as well.

Anybody can preach from their soapbox. That right, at least for now under the current administration, is still with us. It does not guarantee you will be heard or believed.

 

[dstraito]

bump for the weekend crowd.

Just as in situational awareness, I think the same concepts can be extended to online or internet awareness.

 

[JF&P]

The dark side perfected their methods in Germany and Russia (Circa 1914-1991)....remember people, Marx was a satanist.

 

[Garryowen]

I just came across this in my bookmarks, read it again, and am bumping to give anyone who missed it the first time the chance to read it. TY dstraito.

 

[BrendanGM]

Question for the TB2000 Admins.

Because I'm curious.

Show a graph of how much effort is spent
over time by the TB admins examining the
posts on TB in order to identify and ban
those whom fit the profiles above.

Does a graph exist?

Does tb2000 have an "anti-virus"
program that is more than just
banning obnoxious posters?

What's going on?

List all those banned and when.

Is TB a net good or a net negative?

 

[Dosadi]

Question for the TB2000 Admins.

Because I'm curious.

Show a graph of how much effort is spent
over time by the TB admins examining the
posts on TB in order to identify and ban
those whom fit the profiles above.

Does a graph exist?

Does tb2000 have an "anti-virus"
program that is more than just
banning obnoxious posters?

What's going on?

List all those banned and when.

Is TB a net good or a net negative?

While curiosity is a good thing, it would be counter productive to reveal how forum disinformation agents are dealt with as it might arm them with useful ways to circumvent such.

What one might do is learn all the techniques and counters from reading articles and such in this post and elsewhere and becoming a army of one combating such tactics. Hundreds of armies of one are the biggest challenge as trolls such as this rely on most people not seeking to counter them.

It's like 25 or so things to memorize, and then always reply with your counters and be sure to restate the pertinent topic of the thread to prevent the message being buried in the fight.

JMHO

I'm sure if Dennis wants he can show his hand to the world or not.

D.