*Note. I have not read this article in it's entirety due to time constraints, but it seemed to have some very valuable information.
The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies
A sends:
The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5
1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet
forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
______________________________________________________________________________________
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.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules
are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo
artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at
the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy
or conspiracy to cover up.
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.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
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:
a) 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.
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 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.
______________________________________________________________________________________
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
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 expresssion 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 recompensate much too quickly following such an affective
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.
Saboteurs
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.
Cool Compromise the goal.
9) 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.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
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.
