The 25 Rules of Disinformation

By Isaac Davis

We are in the post-constitutional era in the United States, a time when the government does whatever it wants to whomever it wants, and there is not a thing anyone can do about it.

How it is possible that the president can bomb a foreign country or threaten a full-scale international war without so much as even mentioning the need for Congress to chime in, let alone actually vote on a declaration of war?

The short answer is, disinformation and propaganda, which is the domain of mainstream media. When people are confused, when truth is hidden, when agendas are presented as life or death options, and when the public has no clue about which laws government is bound to, then anything goes.

Regarding disinformation, the following list of 25 rules of disinformation is from Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney, and offers a comprehensive way of processing information in a time of universal deceit.

READ: 11 Tactics Used by the Mainstream Media to Manufacture Consent for the Oligarchy

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.

Declare Your Independence!
Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!

Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum Freedom
Claim Your FREE Issue Today!

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.

Read more articles by Isaac Davis.

Isaac Davis is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and OffgridOutpost.com Survival Tips blog. He is an outspoken advocate of liberty and of a voluntary society. He is an avid reader of history and passionate about becoming self-sufficient to break free of the control matrix. Follow him on Facebook, here.

Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.

This article (The 25 Rules of Disinformation) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Isaac Davis and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with friends and family…

Image Credit: Banksy


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

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

8 Comments on "The 25 Rules of Disinformation"

  1. “We are in the post-constitutional era in the United States, a time when the government does whatever it wants to whomever it wants, and there is not a thing anyone can do about it.”

    No, we are in an era of “dumbed down”. Our government is still there, still in writing for any to bother to read. The problem you have, as do many others, is confusing those who SERVE WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENTS – state and federal – with our governments – the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it, plus each state’s Constitution. Except that every election states add amendments that their own populace do not recognize that changes the highest LAW of the state and the CONTRACT that those that serve within that state are under. The framers put it all into documents so that every one who reads can know what EXACTLY those who serve within our governments are allowed to do, forbidden to do, allowed to do ONLY under specific put-into-writing circumstances, etc.

    The people who SERVE WITHIN our governments – elected, hired, contracted, etc – are there to do the duties that are in writing for their branch and/or position. They are under that supreme contract and the state Constitution. Remember that the US Constitution is the compact between the states, but it is the supreme contract that ALL who serve within our governments are required to be Oath at every level of government – if they get a government check, they are to be bound by the Oath or nothing they do is lawful here in the USA.

    So what you seem to be asking is WHO is constitutionally required to enforce the Constitution. That would be us, “We the People of the united States”. It IS in writing, but it has some requirements that go along with it; such as needing to know and understand the US Constitution and your own state’s Constitution. The US Constitution assigns tools that belong only to the people such as the Militia, Grand Jury Investigations, Grand Jury, Jury Trials (which does require knowledgeable jurors), etc.

    Those tools are not assigned to any branch, though duties are assigned to the governments concerning them. It is a requirement for all Americans to train as the Congress requires the military to be trained and to be armed. The people themselves can call out a Grand Jury Investigation into anyone serving within our governments, and if enough evidence is found, any and all who serve within our governments can be charged with whatever crimes are discovered. How many know that JURORS, not judges, decide if a Law is applicable or not; decide the guilt or innocence; even decide if the judge used the constitutionally required “good Behaviour” (doing their duties as constitutionally assigned, take and KEEP their Oath). Ignorance of our legitimate government is the real problem.

    Ask yourself WHO is it that those who serve within OUR governments are required to use to;

    — Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of this land) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state),
    — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”?

    That would be the Militia, that is us.

    “How it is possible that the president can bomb a foreign country or threaten a full-scale international war without so much as even mentioning the need for Congress to chime in, let alone actually vote on a declaration of war?”

    Because those that serve within our US Military do not understand that their Oath is NOT to any person, office, group or entity, but it is to the US Constitution. That Oath makes it every person who serves within the Military personal responsibility to REFUSE to carry out an unLawful order. Since ONLY the Congress can declare war (also in writing), those generals, those serving as US Presidents, etc do NOT have any LAWFUL authority to send American military to battle. Here in the USA, the Military is only allowed to DEFEND our nation; not be sent our for empire building, corporations, banking, “defense” contractors, etc. That actually is a crime on all their part. But that is why you hear all those serving within our governments calling us a “democracy” when the USA has NEVER been anything but a Constitutional Republic with everything those who serve within our governments are allowed to do put down into writing.

    IF those serving within the US Military understood their Oaths they would NOT be in all those foreign nations, instead they would be here in the USA training the American people as the Congress requires the military to be trained, etc.

    Basically it is OUR fault, because WE allowed all these lies, deception, propaganda, re-education of our children, etc to go on. We do NOT LAWFULLY have a centralized government – we broke away from that long ago when we created the USA.

    Consider these two bits of information…

    The Declaration of Independence says that the American colonies of Great Britain had become “free and independent states” — separate states. The U.S. Constitution refers constantly to the states, but never to a “nation”; and this is a fact we should ponder.

    Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)

    • Common Sense | April 18, 2017 at 6:08 am | Reply

      While looking at just the letter of the law, this is correct, HOWEVER, the reality is our apathy and fear has allowed the slow corruption of our judicial system. When officers, lawyers and judges all lie together, no matter the law, who is there to correct it?. Certainly not the people.
      Even if the people would bind together and go after this criminal cabal/mafia with the law behind them, (as I am for) it will come to violence. The criminals who have stolen power are not about to let the law affect them. In their mind those laws are just to corral us.
      If we ever go after them, ( I’m optimistic but our record shows different) KNOW THIS.
      They will lie and bluff.
      They will threaten.
      They will impose violence.
      YOU’RE DEALING WITH CRIMINALS. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

      • Exactly. But that is why the Militia, armed and trained as the Congress requires the military to be trained. It is almost always up to the criminal as to how much force is needed and used to arrest for the crimes committed.

        No judge has their office for life, the US Constitution says that they are allowed to occupy it for as long as they use “good Behaviour” – do the duties as constitutionally assigned, take and KEEP the Oath to support and defend the US Constitution before anything else, including the orders of superiors, and the duties of the position occupied. Yes, that is in writing, Us Constitution, Article 3, Section 1.

        Lots of criminals lie and bluff, but that is the concept and requirement of a JURY trial to decide if the evidence presented shows guilt or innocence; if the law(s) that apply to the case should even be enforced; and if the judge presiding is using “good Behavior” during the trial. That is why all Americans are to read the US Constitution and understand that very short document; plus their own state’s Constitution (usually a much longer document) so that they know what our laws really are, what those that serve are under contract to do, etc.

  2. Oh yeah, forgot the AP auto flagging on the J word:-/
    Again..
    Anyone remember the Chewish woman who used to give talks on how to know a nation is becoming fascist? Sort of like this list.

  3. A lot of these things converge on this strategy: Position ‘The Way My Gang Of Oligarchs Want Things To Be’ as “A matter of national security”. Grab more of tax revenue for “national security”. Make it a crime for outsiders to know about “national security”. Throw people in jail, or secretly kill them for sharing secrets of “national security”. Claim that ends always justify means if its for “national security”. Hire liars to spread rumors, attack targets, create false flags, astroturf, etc. for “national security”. Bomb rivals for “national security”. Prop up dictators who vote your way in the UN and let your corporations run slave labor out of their country for “national security”. And so forth…

  4. All salient points and all are being used in the MSM and on the web. attack, chastise and change the subject (point 22).

    Might want to add replace the the potus with a dopleganger.

  5. You forgot Satire and Comedy late night shows that now deliver the news, clearly the ISIS propaganda agenda 10yrs ago was to introduce this concept to control Media, News and effect on population. From David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon, Solbert, Meyers. To populist TV News Formats with not journalists or news readers, but comedians and riff raft to fit cultural marxist ideology to man the desk and deliver satire tinged comedic news and opinions e.g.: The Young Turks, The Project TV, The Weekly, Bill Maher.

  6. Euclides de oliveira pinto net | April 21, 2017 at 7:41 am | Reply

    O texto do autor parece o manual de instruções de agentes da CIA e do FBI…

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*