i paste here a list of the rules of disinformation i found on the www some years ago. it is a useful tool with which to consider the crap the tv and 'our' government attempts to make part of your inner self when viewing their actions;
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 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” 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
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.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate
yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and
“minutiae” 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 with denial 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.
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.
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. 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 loose interest more quickly without
having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice
in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with
an apparent deductive logic in a way that 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 for
items 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. Vanishing 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 may require 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 an
unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (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) is achieved, the matter can
be considered officially closed.
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 proper intimidation with
blackmail or other threats.
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.
