Troll Tools

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a
internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
______________________________________________________________________________________

COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet
forum..

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a
internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each
technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be
used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a ‘uncontrolled
forum.’

Technique #1 – ‘FORUM SLIDING’

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a
forum – it can be quickly removed from public view by ‘forum sliding.’ In
this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on
the forum and allowed to ‘age.’ Each of these misdirectional forum
postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a ‘forum slide.’ The
second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be
called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public.
To trigger a ‘forum slide’ and ‘flush’ the critical post out of public
view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake
and then ‘replying’ to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line
comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list,
and the critical posting ‘slides’ down the front page, and quickly out of
public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting
it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means
it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated
and non-issue items.

Technique #2 – ‘CONSENSUS CRACKING’

A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all
the time at http://www.abovetopsecret.com) is ‘consensus cracking.’ To develop a
consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a
fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the
truth is made – but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE
without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then
under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is
slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both
sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine
which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger
‘evidence’ or disinformation in your favour is slowly ‘seeded in.’ Thus
the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and
if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be
most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are
highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and
linked postings, you can then ‘abort’ the consensus cracking by initiating
a ‘forum slide.’

Technique #3 – ‘TOPIC DILUTION’

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very
useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive
issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a ‘RESOURCE
BURN.’ By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract
and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively
stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of
gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop
researching and simply slip into a ‘gossip mode.’ In this state they can
be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture
and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it
becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire
the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the
psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of
the group to determine at what level to ‘drive in the wedge.’ By being too
far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Technique #4 – ‘INFORMATION COLLECTION’

Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the
psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that
can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive
environment a ‘show you mine so me yours’ posting is initiated. From the
number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical
information can be gathered. An example is to post your ‘favourite weapon’
and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have.
In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage
of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same
method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your
favourite ‘technique of operation.’ From the replies various methods that
the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop
them from their activities.

Technique #5 – ‘ANGER TROLLING’

Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are
more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals
are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately
incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the
group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly
local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a
link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his
power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or
so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught
abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for
intelligence gathering purposes – without the requirement to ‘stage’ a
fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the
more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to
‘lead’ the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement
of violent intent, and that you ‘do not care what the authorities think!!’
inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective
in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of
the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later
in a court of law during prosecution.

Technique #6 – ‘GAINING FULL CONTROL’

It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a
forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can
then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable
postings – and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure
and lack of interest by the general public. This is the ‘ultimate victory’
as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no
longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of
control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by
censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally
taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed.
However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be
converted into a ‘honey pot’ gathering center to collect and misdirect
newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your
agenda purposes.

CONCLUSION

Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO
NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation
can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point
other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal
precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is
not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track
the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for
control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed
by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration
and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules
are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo
artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at
the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy
or conspiracy to cover up.

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 which 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’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the
Internet’ 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 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 ‘minutia’ 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 except with denials 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 – a
kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily
contained.) 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 criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on
your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’
because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ 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 lose interest more quickly without having
to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning
backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which 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 with issues
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. Vanish 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, it may be required that 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 and
unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is
achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. 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.

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 destroying them
financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

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.
______________________________________________________________________________________

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

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.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose 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.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally
with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation
in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. 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.

4) Teamwork. 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.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy
theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not
killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy
theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG
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.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an
ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as
they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. 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 disinfo artist is that emotions can seem
artificial.

Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their
animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have
trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to
pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional
communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act
their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might
be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have
outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger
later — an emotional yo-yo.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter
them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old
disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it
is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly
cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style,
substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. 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’, so to speak, in that perhaps they
really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information
which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player
claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills
(spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school
education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college
degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but
later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the
response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work,
especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a
cover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an
IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford
to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage.
SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS
CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as
email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72
hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy
for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction
from a formal chain of command.

c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns
are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach
in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their
comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal
truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same
sin.

______________________________________________________________________________________

How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group
that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn’t get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they
have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace
from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic
background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant.
It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on
the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up,
destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent’s job to keep the activist from quitting such a group,
thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

“You’re dividing the movement.”

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver
works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The
agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of
“dedication to the cause.” Because of their often declared dedication,
(and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he
or she – being truly dedicated to the movement – becomes convinced that
somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated
person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody
would dissimulate and lie like that “on purpose.” It’s amazing how far
agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will
constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their
dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent,
they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: “they did
that unconsciously… they didn’t really mean it… I can help them by
being forgiving and accepting ” and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

“You’re a leader!”

This is designed to enhance the activist’s self-esteem. His or her
narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions
increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the
altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to
mirror those of the activist.

This is “malignant pseudoidentification.” It is the process by which the
agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the
activist’s identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist’s
vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle
self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable
to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent
when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency,
autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist’s general empathy for
the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist’s self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the
activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a
more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the
activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of
“twinship”. It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived
helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering
ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of
their agent/handler.

The activist’s “felt quality of perfection” [self-concept] is enhanced,
and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her
imitation and simulation of the victim’s own narcissistic investments.
[self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own
dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is
“mirroring” them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this
feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement
setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the
establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic
splitting so that “twinship alliances” between activist and agent may
render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They
literally “lose touch with reality.”

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good
idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and
consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be “helpers”
endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to
the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite
visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear,
remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong
sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist’s
narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent’s expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling
to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is
aware of his/her own potential for being “emotionally hooked,” will be
able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the
agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will
occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an
affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that “the
play has ended, the curtain has fallen,” and the imposture, for the
moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another
activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn’t need leaders, it needs MOVERS. “Follow
the leader” is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a
lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved
discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a
person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ….

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
Cool Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone’s time. The agent may
accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other
amusement to slow down the activist’s work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish “leaders” to set them up for a fall in order to stop
the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal
with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or
her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog.
Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political
parties or movements set up by agents.

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good
activist!

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to
disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via
psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and
give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant
illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant
false information and set up “exposure,” they will send incriminating
letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do
whatever society will allow.

This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the
lives of sincere an dedicated activists.

If an agent is “exposed,” he or she will be transferred or replaced.

COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is
no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom
of information act.

The FBI counterintelligence program’s stated purpose: To expose, disrupt,
misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI
categorize as opposed to the National Interests. “National Security” means
the FBI’s security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it
does in violation of people’s civil liberties.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring
down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based
defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these
techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere
token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it’s not reported, if it’s not news, it didn’t happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the “How dare you?” gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as “rumors” or, better yet, “wild rumors.” If,
in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the
suspicious facts, it can only be through “rumors.” (If they tend to
believe the “rumors” it must be because they are simply “paranoid” or
“hysterical.”)

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest
charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or
plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all
the charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like “conspiracy theorist,” “nutcase,”
“ranter,” “kook,” “crackpot,” and, of course, “rumor monger.” Be sure,
too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their
charges and defending the “more reasonable” government and its defenders.
You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people
you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own “skeptics” to shoot
down.

6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting
strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply
pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to
over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are
not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can
be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as “old news.”

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as “confession and avoidance” or
“taking the limited hangout route.” This way, you create the impression of
candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless,
less-than-criminal “mistakes.” This stratagem often requires the embrace
of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.
With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled
by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as
ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With
thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We
have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster
“suicide” note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven’t
reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme
involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would
report the leak.

12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was
murdered, who did it and why?

13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or
publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them.
This is sometimes referred to as “bump and run” reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute
the “facts” furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous,
source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges “expose”
scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real
opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people
for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question,
“What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet
news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing
genuine critics?” Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the
newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to
print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them
from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

Source: Troll Tools

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s