Home / Relaksasi / Intermezo / The 25 Rules of Disinformation

The 25 Rules of Disinformation

The 25 Rules of DisinformationVigilantCitizen

  1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discussit — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s notreported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
  2. Becomeincredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus onside issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of someotherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!”gambit.
  3. Ciptakan tukang buat desas-desus. Hindari membahas masalah dengan menjelaskan semua tuduhan-tuduhan, terlepas dari tempatatau buktinya, hanya sebagai desas-desus belaka dan tuduhan liar. Menggunakan istilah yang saling menghina kebenaransatu sama lain secara terpisah dapat bekerja dengan baik. Metode ini bekerja dengan baik terutamadengan diamnya pers, karena satu-satunya cara masyarakat dapat memahami adalahdari fakta-fakta seperti melalui “desas-desus yang diperdebatkan”. Jika Anda dapat mengkaitkanbahan dengan internet, menggunakan fakta ini untuk menyatakan sebuah “desas-desus liar ” yang sebenarnya tidak memiliki dasar fakta.
  4. Usea straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument whichyou can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to lookbad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on yourinterpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select theweakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroythem in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricatedalike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
  5. Sidetrackopponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primaryattack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of thatapproach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”,”right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”,”radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, andso forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the samelabel, and you avoid dealing with issues.
  6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or theopponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, orsimply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet andletters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities canbe called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make anaccusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering anysubsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
  7. Questionmotives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that theopponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoidsdiscussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
  8. Invokeauthority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and presentyour argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “onewho knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues ordemonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
  9. PlayDumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussingissues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide anyproof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix wellfor maximum effect.
  10. Associateopponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in anylarge-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on whichcan be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have yourown side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of theinitial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or newground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge anddismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — somuch the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
  11. Establishand rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of thefacts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocentmistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on theopportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalitieswhich, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Doneproperly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owningup” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
  12. Enigmashave no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding thecrime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as toocomplex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin toloose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
  13. Alicein Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards withan apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
  14. Demandcomplete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crimeat hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
  15. Fitthe facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless thecrime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
  16. Vanishingevidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’thave to address the issue.
  17. Changethe subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here,find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial commentsin hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This worksespecially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic andpolarize 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 tauntyour opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to makethem look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their materialsomewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in thefirst instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, youcan further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are tocriticism”.
  19. Ignoreproof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the”play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponentin public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that isimpossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at hisdisposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed orwithheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussingissues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or booksas valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny thatstatements made by government or other authorities have any meaning orrelevance.
  20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designedand manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools toneutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when thecrime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot beeasily separated from the fabrications.
  21. Calla Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitiveissues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony arerequired to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own theprosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence andthat the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once afavorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guiltyinnocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame avictim) 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 viascientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludesfavorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do soauthoritatively.
  23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working todistract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage ofunstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them assuch) to distract the multitudes.
  24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removingopponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need toaddress issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest anddetention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmailinformation, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
  25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overlyilluminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues,vacate the kitchen.


Sumber: vigilantcitizen.com

About admin

Check Also

Kisah Tentang Cinta

Aku membencinya, itulah yang selalu kubisikkan dalam hatiku hampir sepanjang kebersamaan kami. Meskipun menikahinya, aku tak pernah benar-benar menyerahkan hatiku padanya. Menikah karena paksaan orangtua, membuatku membenci suamiku sendiri. Walaupun menikah terpaksa, aku tak pernah menunjukkan sikap benciku. Meskipun membencinya, setiap hari aku melayaninya sebagaimana tugas istri.