-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
..............................................................
>From the New Paradigms Project [Not Necessarily Endorsed]:
Conspiracy Shopping Cart: http://a-albionic.com/shopping.html
25 Rules of PropagandaFebruary 29, 2000 The Black Helicopter Chronicles Page 1
25 Rules of PropagandaHear 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.
Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be
used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group
or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Play Dumb.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing
issues by denial that 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with
contingency conclusions in place.
Vanishing evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the
issue.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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 ensure 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you
instead.
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most
common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually
spot the professional propagandists by one or more of seven distinct traits:
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.
They tend to pick and choose their 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.
They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial
topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the
particular public arena. 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.
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.
They express complete disdain for "conspiracy theorists". Ask yourself why, if
they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic 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.
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 propaganda artist is
that emotions can seem artificial.
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 in that they really root for the side of truth deep within.
"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance;
which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime,
and the punishment of his guilt"
-- John Philpot Curran
Web Pages � 2000 Jennifer Logan.
Black Helicopter Wake-up Campaign.Buy Viagra On-Line:
http://a-albionic.com/ads/srch.html
Shop for Cars On-Line: http://a-albionic.com/ads/srch.html
Forwarded for info and discussion from the New Paradigms Discussion List,
not necessarily endorsed by:
***********************************
Lloyd Miller, Research Director for A-albionic Research (POB 20273,
Ferndale, MI 48220), a ruling class/conspiracy research resource for the
entire political-ideological spectrum. Quarterly journal, book sales,
rare/out-of-print searches, New Paradigms Discussion List, Weekly Up-date
Lists & E-text Archive of research, intelligence, catalogs, & resources.
To Discuss Ideas:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://msen.com/~lloyd/
For Ordering Info & Free Catalog:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a-albionic.com/formaddress.html
For Discussion List:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
text in body: subscribe prj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
**FREE RARE BOOK SEARCH: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> **
Explore Our Archive: <http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic.html>
Every Diet Has Failed! What Can I do?
Click Below to "Ask Dr. Kathleen"!
http://www.radiantdiet.com/cgi-bin/slim/deliver.cgi?ask-1364
***********************************
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
