25 Rules of Disinformation, Propaganda, “PSYOPS”, Debunking Techniques

12-Days-Before-08-Crash-Many-in-Congress-Pulled-their-Money-Out-of-the-Stock-MarketBy Kristan T. Harris

25 Rules of Disinformation – Possible rules of Operation Mockingbird

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 deviants”, 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 critical 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 “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 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 criminality 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 that 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 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 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.

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.

Kristan T. Harris writes for American Intelligence Report, where this article first appeared.

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

20 Comments on "25 Rules of Disinformation, Propaganda, “PSYOPS”, Debunking Techniques"

  1. H. Michael Sweeney | May 28, 2016 at 5:48 am |

    Kristan Harris is not the author of this work, I am. This has been updated by this author, including 8 traits of the Disinformationalist.

    The orginal title: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
    The Rules of Disinformation
    (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

    “Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact.”

    Kristan added, removed, and edited the original work, perhaps this is why.

    Here is trait #1 of the Disinformationalist which is included with the 25 Rules.

    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.

    If you would like to use the original work in it’s entirety, please do so and give me credit, it took considerable time and effort.

    Thank you

    • Nonetheless it is a good work to read. Thank you for giving her permission to share

      • NoHonorAmongThieves | May 28, 2016 at 9:41 am |

        It’s crap, because it’s incomplete.

        If you actually read the post, you are doing what the author describes as trait #1 and he hasn’t given anyone permission to STEAL his work, change it, and call it their own.

        I think H. Michael is saying it’s incomplete, as the included 8 traits are missing. Probably because Kristan Harris is trying to pawn this off as their own work, but I guess if harris has to spread someone else’s work to make money, that makes it ok.

        You can find the original with a simple search and it’s quite comical to find this site is for activists and disregards the information the author has posted.

        Why would you remove information if you like the work so much?

        nice try, heheh

    • Yep. See my comment below, Michael. I knew I had read it years ago, and I liked it, and bookmarked it, and when I saw this, I looked it up and sure enough: you were plagiarized.

  2. 26. Use false words and language that no one understand
    27. Use lies
    28. Cheat
    29. Kill and hide
    30. Accuse others of own crimes
    31. Treat people like idiots and speak them as you would speak to kids
    32. Treat people like doctors so that they can not undertand (Bosnia/Serbia/Kosovo… no one understands what it is)
    33. Pay bad people to play your game (US used it in the Balkans)
    34. Division of friends
    35. Turn one group against others (done in Yugoslavia by CIA)

  3. Kudos for this – whomever first printed.
    36. give no voice to anyone outside the msm except the players who are in the narrative/script.

  4. The 1st rule for all ‘presstitutes’ is: “Regurgitate the same disinfo pablum that all the other outlets are spewing with minor alterations to make it appear original”.

  5. “To be born again, begin conception by thinking kindly, generously, liberally and lovingly of every- thing and everybody you meet or come in contact with. You are beginning to conceive — the Christ.
    It may be a small seed at first, but if you give it life and nourishment it will grow. You must water it, feed it and tend it with the thoughts of your mind, then when it attains life, it is born— it is your soul that is born and is the likeness of its Creator Osiris or the Christ.”

  6. “All is individual responsibility.
    When we love our soul we love our real self. If we love that self we will not do that which destroys it. When we love evil we destroy that real self, because we are not loving it as we should.
    We project, cherish and reverence that which we love, and we see thousands who are flinging them- selves away for the mere glitter of gold, an evil desire, or lustful propensities.
    There is something always with you. Something you do not see.
    It manifests itself in your every movement and action.”

  7. 37) Don’t believe anything you see on tv – it’s all digital and scripted, the same with any MSM agenda driven fascist corporation.

  8. This is good but you forgot: bomb them into the stone age. For more on mind control techniques see the website of David Duke, who dissects the entire zionist control network.

  9. No. this story did not first appear there on “American Intelligence or Report” – or here. it is written by H. Michael Sweeney “From Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation” and has been previously posted in a blog correctly attributing him as the author on May 24, 2011. I’d say that makes this post … disinformation. In fact Sweeney copyrighted this in 1997 and 2000. So … this is disinformation to present it as …. yours.

  10. Pyra: Michael did NOT give his permission. No corrections have been made to this publication at all. The only correction is the one listed by me (below) and by the original author. To date, the publication is violating copyright laws because the attribution to Michael has never been made official, it STILL falsely lists Kristina as the author and she is not (as of 1-2-17). This is theft of intellectual property and should corrected by the editors of Activist Post at once; until such a change is made clear, this website has no credibility if they are willing to steal the work of other authors without proper attribution.

    • You comment on a 7 month old post and expect what?

      There is no such thing as “intellectual property” the way you use it any more than there is real personhood to a corporation. “Intellectual Property” is just some B.S. crap made up by corporations to merchandise and commercialize everything for a shiny nickel. That’s like this non-thinking covetous notion where companies can get patents on natural things. Bogus. Question that. If you don’t want others using your works, then HIDE THEM IN YOUR HEART AND KEEP IT SECRET. People are gonna talk, yanno, and it’s not your place to decide how they do that.

      So I could care less if “Kristin” or Michael or whoever bicker over this. If the ideas are good and your message reaches your audience, then anything past that you are just wanting to “get paid”. . You fight for it and leave me out of it.

      • Intellectual property is a real legal construct even if you disagree with its premise. When you write a book and someone steals all of your work and profits from it, come back and tell us how you feel.

        • I’ll tell your right now how I feel: your legal definitions mean squat to me. I operate on principles, not rules and regulations and legal constructs. You go believe what you are told to believe, but I don’t buy into that nonsense rationale.

          • So, according your “principles,” it is okay for someone to steal another person’s work. Someone who has labored hard to create something can simply be ripped off by some other person who then makes money off that other person’s labor and efforts. This is a childish understanding that partially defines the nature of our society and world. The original author researched and wrote this, then Kristin here got a paycheck for stealing his work – she did nothing more than copy and paste, then went home and cashed her check. You have a seriously twisted concept of ethics. I guess it’s just fine with you if some famous singer writes a song, writes the music, records it, and then someone else comes along, steals that work, and then publishes and promotes it as his own work and makes millions of dollars from that theft. Do you realize that the intermittent windshield wipers on your car are based on intellectual property? The man who created this technology, who labored over the creation of this technological feat that everyone takes for granted today, had his patent stolen by a major automobile corporation which replicated and sold products based on that theft and made endless profits. He sued and eventually won millions of dollars in reparations. They stole his intellectual property. No one is telling you “what to believe.” You can believe in unicorns flying over rainbows pouring buckets of cash on those who create original pieces of work to compensate them from the theft from others if you like. I don’t really care what you believe. But I emphasize that your belief reflects a childish understanding of this subject, leaving me to wonder if you are intellectually only 13 years old because you obviously have not exercised critical thinking skills and applied them here.

          • Pyra Gorgon | January 5, 2017 at 8:13 am |

            Whatever. Go insult another person. Not interested in dialog with you. Pester me and I will summarily block you.

Leave a comment