The 25 rules of disonformation : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

I thought this so true that it's worth seeing...


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - The Politicians Credo

Courtesy of American Patriot Friends Network and Walt July 15, 1998

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 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.

-- Dennis (, July 30, 1999


Title should be ...disinformation....

Damned rented fingers...

-- Dennis (, July 30, 1999.

And if you want to see the rules in action, just watch Maria or any of the other Pollys.

-- (its@coming.soon), July 30, 1999.


If you have rented fingers, then I must have rented eyes, because I didn't see that mistake in the title. Are you just jumping in with rule 11 to preempt any critics? :-) Seriously, that is a very interesting list and spotlights what the fruadulent spokesperson can use to their advantage.

-- Gordon (, July 30, 1999.

OK, Dennis, it seems to me that I have seen these points somewhere before and when I first encountered them, I said to myself that they directly call ALL forms of information into question, and that no reporting can be looked at as being the rendering of absolute truths. Indeed, even historical data can be looked at with a bit of cynicism.

If you are in agreement with these points, then I am sure you understand why there are many like me who refuse to 'take a side' in the diatribe between the two differing sides of this question.

Dennis, thanks for illustrating that once again, I cannot see anything other than the fact that perception about y2k really is reality. Government spin meisters have their role. Programmers who encounter success with remediation will give their spin, while programmers with millions of lines of code to remediate---with only a little time left---will speak about the futility and hopelessness. And the media? They'll quote all of the above....and a myriad of corporate leaders who don't want to lose customer the process.

Dennis, there is no such thing as true knowledge regarding the ramifications of y2k. How can there be, when we have so much misinformation at the grassroots level?

-- Bad Company (, July 30, 1999.

Looks like the rules of this forum!

-- (a@aaaa.hole), July 30, 1999.

Isn't it true that our PERCEPTION is ALWAYS our "reality"? And that this reality can be vastly different between person 'A' and person 'B'? To get "existential" for a moment.... Isn't LIFE just PERCEPTION?

Oh, and I forgot the LINK above...


-- Dennis (, July 30, 1999.

Dennis, it's too early in the day to have a few beers and discuss this....that's true enough....but perception acting as reality IS appropriate in this discussion. There are some concrete parameters that all the discussiona nd debate can't change, and pure fact will prove or disprove the validity of those perceptions in the days and weeks following the date rollover. And yet, perceptions are what drive the turmoil that we see on this board from time to time and on many, many others.

what is uniquely strange about the internet is that it doesn't mirror life. One can get extremely optimistic or pessimistic from time spent on various message boards or in reading the webpages that eminate from people who have some sort of agenda in all of the proceedings. I have found that time spent on the computer is akin to spending time watching a tv show if one's livelihood is not in IT.

I'll say it again, are correct about perceptions. They won't mean much next year at this time and with regards to y2k, they don't mean much out in the real world. Few are paying much heed.

-- Bad Company (, July 30, 1999.

Bad Company,

Get out of the middle of the road.

There's a truck coming and you're about to get run over.

-- nothere nothere (, July 30, 1999.

So what is new - do you watch the news, follow (or even just scan political "reports"? Any/every elected politico has this drummed into him/her from birth, but most kids seem to know it intuitively anyway.

Bottom line is from "X files" - Trust no-one

-- (, July 30, 1999.

I suppose you posted this so everyone would know how to mount a proper TB2000 front against the 'pollys'? If that isn't the reason, then what is it? I haven't seen the pollys using these tactics, more the reverse.

-- Paul Davis (, July 30, 1999.

interesting reaction paul. did it ring your bell all the way over at biffy?

-- (telepathic@paulynet.r-us), July 30, 1999.

Mr. Davis:

I was not aware I said the "P"-word in my post.

I found this tidbit funny, ironic, and TRUE.

How you may see it is ENTIRELY up to you....

-- Dennis (, July 30, 1999.

Dennis- What I find amusing about this is that for almost each different "rule" I read, a picture of a different "regular" on this forum would spring to my mind. Go through your list again. Stop on each rule and run down a mental list of those who you "know" on this forum. If you are like me, you will realize there are some people who post nearly exclusively using that specific rule's method. (I'll not name names but I think you'll see who they are also.) You'll also see that these are the same people who have such personal difficulties when they try argueing with Flint In case you haven't noticed, Flint is a master at recognizing when someone is trying to use the rules of disinformation. When he calls them on it (and he usually does), they become quite flustered. It's amusing to watch actually.

-- CD (, July 30, 1999.


I'm gonna smack you if you actually believe that Perception is Reality. Your Perception is in err. Your Human Nature compels you to realize the contrary, That your Reality is what you are fighting to ignore.

Man was Willed into existence by God and given purpose. You deny your Existence with that Stupid assertion, that you can in a fashion "control" Reality with your Perception.

It is a Good thing for you that you can't Wish yourself OUT of Existence.


-- Thomas G. Hale (, July 31, 1999.


Think, Man! Think!!!


-- Thomas G. Hale (, July 31, 1999.

Exactly Father Hale, exactly. At a recent meeting, one of our employees produced a laundry list of things that were hurting the company's performance. When asked to explain by the rest of the workers, he merely said 'well, perception IS reality', to which the CEO shot back, 'no, YOUR perception is YOUR reality'.

As you may imagine, that was the end of the discussion about company ailments.

And there you have it in a nutshell with regards to y2k: too many perceptions and too many clashing 'realities' passing as facts.....from too many sources that believe themselves to be in the know. That Dennis would post the above 25 laws and not recognize that both sides of this issue routinely utilize many of the points is shocking and disapppointing, at the same time. Unlike most debates, y2k has no winner or loser because the 'facts' can't be verified until the date rollover, and all of the perceptions and 'false' realities become discards.

With that in mind, I'll stay here.....camped out in the middle of the road, with either a truck or beetle with a bad muffler coming my way.

-- Bad Company (, July 31, 1999.

Jeez guys! Stop trying to OVER-ANALYSE this post.

YES, I understand that folks on ALL sides of ALL issues use these tactics... DUH!

And MY PERCEPTION *IS* MY REALITY. For example, I perceive that Y2K will be a 6-8. Therefore, I prepare for that scenario. My perception drives my puchases, etc. Someone ELSE will not share my perception, so they perform in a different reality, one that holds validity for THEM.

Now, the ACTUAL EVENTS of Y2K can be considered a "collective", or more "senior reality"; that is, these events will occur REGARDLESS of what people's previous individual perceptions told them.

This is very hard for me to explain, since I'm not a psych major or anything, but I hope it makes a LITTLE bit of sense, anyway. (And I PROMISE not to get "existential", EVER AGAIN!)


-- Dennis (, July 31, 1999.


I just felt the need to jump on you and make certain you hadn't morphed into a "Sheeple."

Upon your clarification you make more sense. I'd go so far as to say I agree with you. *smile*

Keep Prepping. And don't forget that if you percieve you are dead, that something else will keep you alive.

And don't forget to tell your wife that you love her several times a day!

These are the Best last days of our lives.


-- Thomas G. Hale (, August 01, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ