25 Ways To Suppress The Truth

Have a look down this list and count how many of these tactics you see being used daily by mainstream print and broadcast media and the political, academic and business establishment

From Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney. These 25 rules are everywhere in media, from political debates, to television shows, to comments on a blog.

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.


Government Corporate Mind Control Conspiracy

Boggart AbroadDaily Stirrer homeGreenteeth BitesBoggart BlogGreenteeth LabyrinthAuthorGatherBubblewsAuthorsdenScribd

Ian Thorpe at Facebook

Age – The New Apartheid

The civilised world said goodbye to official racism years ago. Black and White can ride on the same bus now in from Jackson to Johannesburg. You do not see many white people on the buses of course, but the principle is established: segregation of the races is morally and legally wrong.
No doubt in time practice will catch up with principle but what passes for civilisation in the 21st century thrives on an “us and them” society. A famous British TV drama of the 1960s explored this theme. Titled “If There Weren’t Any Blacks You Would Have To Invent Them,” it showed how racism is more to do with the class system than ethnicity. So now that the poorest or most insecure white citizens cannot openly look down on their black neighbours, how do the lower levels of society give themselves status?
There are many ways; address snobbery, do you rent from a private landlord or a public service housing agency. Home buyers, or home owners as they like to style themselves although all they really own is the obligation to pay off a debt, even in the meanest of mortgaged homes quite glibly regard themselves as superior to renters. So there is one Apartheid. The job snob is another segregationist. People who work in financial services for example find it easy to be condescending about trades such as plumber, electrician, car mechanic, bricklayer etc. although there is little doubt which group would be most quickly missed should they be removed from society.
The most worrying manifestation of the new Apartheid though is the marginalisation of the old. This started out with wrinklies being derided as demented husks who could do nothing but reminisce about the war, but more and more I hear people of my age group complaining of feeling marginalised. We know nothing, our skills are obsolete, we are regarded as if we speak a foreign language (some of us actually do, because in our day you could not earn a GCSE in French for being able to say “ce vin est merde M’sieur.”) and our status in the modern world is similar to that of a boil on the arse. There is just no place for the middle aged in the twenty – first century.
Everything now is organised, managed (“if it can be measured it can be managed” goes the slogan of Blair’s favourite Management Consultancy) and we must not embark upon any venture without having been properly trained. Where did my mother look for advice when I came along? My Grandmas. Yet now the idea of grandparents being involved in a child’s upbringing in any capacity other than occasional money provider is sneered at. New parents are given parenting classes, in which they are taught by childless but very sincere people with qualifications in “childcare.” Old people have no idea, we are told and yet it seems to me, and my memory is not quite fuddled yet, that there were far less problem kids when I was at school.
Ah school, where the only history taught is that “the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.” So differently that the role of parents has been usurped completely. I remember getting my daughter in trouble once by showing her how to use an encyclopaedia to find information for a project. Her submission was rejected with the comment “your course has not covered this information yet.” In other words kids are only allowed to know what the system tells them. Now we are getting to the really Machiavellian aspect of the new Apartheid.
Teenagers are coached in doing what comes naturally to such an extent that they lose interest and start getting their thrills from downloading videos of things that come very unnaturally. In the eighteenth century Lord Chesterfield said “nothing in life sets up a young man so well as having an older mistress.” I wonder what he would have made of the current fad of “daisy chaining,” in which children (they would hate me calling them that) leave school and have sex with as many partners as possible before they have to go home to watch the soaps. And yet parents are excluded from sex education too. Not surprising as few of us would teach our kids that it is just a numbers game. But of course, numbers can be measured, love cannot.
Not so long ago we looked forward to joining the adult world, older people had more fun, they told better stories, we learned from them how to think for ourselves.
In order for the state to continue its march into every aspect of our private lives we must willingly become a compliant society.
Future generations must be taught how to play and how to love in the uniform way approved by the appropriate NGO, they must be educated to want to know only what they need to know, disillusioned with experience before they have had any worthwhile experiences on which to base judgements and most of all they must be protected from anybody who might give them the idea that there is a great big wonderful world beyond the boundaries of their narrow lives. Brainwash people with the idea that they have done everything worth doing by the time they are sixteen and it becomes easy. And that is how the apartheid of age is being used.