Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation 
<http://www.trufax.org/research2/disinforules.html> 

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. 

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net