Saturday, May 28, 2016

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

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


PSYOP is the dissemination of truthful information to foreign audiences in support of U.S. policy and national objectives. Used during peacetime, contingencies, and declared war, these activities are not a form of force, but are force multipliers that use nonviolent means in often violent environments.

Can You Identify Which of these Rules are Still in Use by Our Leaders Today?

25 Rules of Disinformation – Possible rules of Operation Mocking Bird
PROPAGANDA, “PSYOPS”, DEBUNKING TECHNIQUES

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation



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.

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.



Thursday, May 19, 2016

Inferior vs Superior- Marimba Ani




“The white self image requires an “inferior” to which it relates as “superior”. The idea of progress helps to explain to Western Europeans in what way they are “superior”.  They believe,and are able to make others believe, that since they represent the most “progressive” force at any any given moment, they are most human and therefore “best”. Others in the world represent varying degrees of inferiority.  In other words, the idea of progress provides a scale on which to weigh and by which to compare people via their cultures(their group creations).  The Western European ethos requires a self image not merely of superiority but of supremacy, and the idea of progress makes white people supreme among human beings. Without the idea and this conceptual sleight of hand,cultures would merely be different. Western culture would merely be intensely and obsessively rational. With the assumption of the idea of progress, the West becomes “better”.

SOURCE


“There is no national consciousness without awareness of cultural identity and the political context. The Afrikan national consciousness exists when people of Afrikan descent perceive themselves as representing one cultural, genetic, historical, spiritual, political, ideological entity: the Afrikan World Community.”

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

South Carolina Man Who Killed, 'Slow Cooked' the Bodies of 2 Men Is Now Out on Bond

    South Carolina Man Who Killed, ‘Slow Cooked’ the Bodies of 2 Men Is Now Out on Bond Thanks to Stand Your Ground Law 
    May 10, 2016 | Posted by Tanasia Kenney

    Guma Oz Dubar (Photo Credit: Charleston County Detention Center) and James Loftis (Photo Credit: Goose Creek Police Department)

    It was a typical Saturday night for taxi cab driver Guma Oz Dubar, 46, as he picked up passengers in need of a ride home after a long night of partying. With his friend James Cody Newland, 32, in tow, the two picked up a man named James Edward Loftis from a local South Carolina strip club. Things took a turn for the worst, however, when they dropped Loftis off at his Goose Creek home.

    39-year-old Loftis claimed the taxi driver and his friend demanded a large amount of cash for the taxi ride and attempted to force their way into his house. That’s when he shot both men in the head and chest. Loftis then dug a shallow grave in his backyard and set the bodies on fire.
    “They were essentially just slow-cooked inside the grave site,” said Deputy Solicitor Bryan Alfaro.

    Police arrived at the home later that night after Loftis’ wife reported that while she was out of town, her husband had called her to say he “killed ‘them’ and put them in the back yard,” the Washington Post reports. She noticed the smell of bleach from her husband’s attempted crime scene cleanup when she came home. She also explained to police that her husband has a history of mental issues, per an incident report.

    The South Carolina man now faces two murder charges for the deaths of the African-American cab driver and his friend, according to Raw Story.
    The news publication also reports that Loftis gave authorities varying accounts of what happened the evening of March 5, 2016. He initially told police he invited the two men in but then contradicted his story by saying they barged into his home.

    Per Rolling Out, the family and friends of Dubar, the slain taxi driver, say that he would never force anyone to pay a cab fare; he would instead call the police and let them handle it like he’s done in the past.
    Stephen Harris, the attorney appointed to defend Loftis, acknowledges that what his client did was “heinous” but he had every right to defend himself under South Carolina’s Stand Your Ground Law.

    “He’s a human being,” Harris said. “He freaked out and thought he was going to prison, so he tried to hide the bodies. Nobody knows how you’re going to react when you kill two people.”

    According to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division website, the state’s Protection or Persons and Property Act is essentially a “Stand Your Ground” law that legally authorizes the use of deadly force against an intruder in your home, vehicle or place of business. The law also grants immunity “from criminal prosecution and civil action” to individuals who decide to use lethal force to defend themselves.

    Loftis was allegedly traumatized by the attempted home invasion and used evidence of a size 12 shoe print at the door of his home in order to support his claim.
    Per Raw Story, circuit Judge Markley Dennis complied to allow Loftis to post $250,000 bond at a court hearing Sunday, stating that his choice of the defense makes him less of a flight risk. Loftis’ lawyer says he will remain under house arrest until his trial.

    One of the victim’s daughters said she forgives Loftis for what he did, according to Live5News. Dubar’s wife isn’t willing to forgive just yet, though.
    “You took my soulmate from me,” she said to the Post and Courier. “He didn’t deserve to be burned.”

    Join us in our effort to change our world with Empowering Narratives. Share this empowering narrative on your social network of choice and ask others to do the same.



Monday, May 2, 2016

Obama Out! Mr. Man Dropped the Mic like a hot potato!

NB Commentary: Mr. Man dropped the mic, on purpose, I felt it hit the floor. I know he is ready to get the hell out of dodge!!



video



Barack Obama Becomes Our Nation's First President to Nail a Mic Drop
BY MARCUS JONES  MAY 1, 2016   Media via ABC News

After effortlessly roasting people like Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama ended his speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner the way we all wished he would, with a presidential mic drop so powerful that Donald Trumpcould feel the impact blow off his hair system from hundreds of miles away.
This immediately iconic mic drop came after the most earnest moment in his speech, where he thanked the correspondents for "working to push to shine a light on the truth" and helping him "strengthen democracy." "With that I have just two more words to say," he prefaced the move, "Obama out." Then he dropped that mic like it was the Cuba embargo.

The moment had been a long time coming, as his final year in office has seen a change in him that supporters have pushed for since 2008. Whether it was asking if "folks want to pop off," getting Game of Thrones screeners sent to him early, inviting everyone's favorite rappers to the White House, or getting coffee with Jerry Seinfeld while still doing his duties as commander in chief, Obama has been living his last year with swagger.

It is a bittersweet moment to see President Obama give us a GIF that is the ultimate sign off knowing that whoever comes after him will have big shoes to fill, in the comedy department at the very least. In a highlight from his speech, Obama subtlety gives an idea of who he thinks is our next president by saying, "Next year at this time, someone else will be standing here in this very spot, and it's anyone's guess who she will be.



Louis C.K. - You cant take a People's historical context away from them.

Louis C.K. - You cant take a People's historical context away from them.

Early life
C.K. was born on September 12, 1967, in Washington, D.C.,[2][4][12][13] the son of Mary Louise Székely (née Davis), asoftware engineer, and Luis Székely, an economist.[2] C.K.'s parents met at Harvard University, where his mother was completing her degree in a summer-school program.[1] They were married at St. Francis Church in Traverse City,Michigan.[14] C.K. has three sisters.[15]
When C.K. was a year old, his family moved to his father's home country of Mexico, from where his father had earned a degree from the National Autonomous University of Mexico prior to graduating from Harvard.[14] C.K.'s first language was Spanish; it was not until after the move to the U.S. that he began to learn English.[16] He has since mostly forgotten his Spanish.[17] C.K.'s paternal grandfather, Dr. Géza Székely Schweiger, was a surgeon. Székely Schweiger was aHungarian Jew whose family immigrated to Mexico, where he met C.K.'s paternal grandmother, Rosario Sánchez Morales.[18] Sánchez Morales was a CatholicMexican.[17] C.K.'s grandfather agreed to have his children raised Catholic, but was (according to C.K.) "quietly Jewish".[19]
C.K.'s mother, an American with Irish ancestry, grew up on a farm in Michigan.[20][21] She graduated from Owosso High School in Owosso, Michigan. She attendedUniversity of Michigan and graduated from Ohio State University Phi Beta Kappa. C.K.'s maternal grandparents were M. Louise Davis and Alfred C. Davis.[14]







At age seven, C.K. left Mexico with his family to move back to the United States and settle in Boston.[22] Upon moving from Mexico to suburban Boston, C.K. wanted to become a writer and comedian, citing Richard PryorSteve Martin, and George Carlin as some of his influences.[1] When he was 10, his parents divorced. C.K. said that his father was around but he did not see him much and when he remarried, C.K.'s father converted to Orthodox Judaism, the faith of his new wife.[19] C.K. and his three sisters were raised by their single mother in NewtonMassachusetts.[23] The fact that his mother had only "bad" TV shows to view upon returning home from work inspired him to work on television.[23] C.K.'s mother raised her children as Catholic, wanting them to have a religious framework and understanding, and they attended after-school Catholic class until they completed communion.[19] C.K. has said that his father's whole family still lives in Mexico. C.K.'s paternal uncle Dr. Francisco Székely is an academic and an international consultant on environmental affairs who served as Mexico's Deputy Minister of Environment (2000–2003).[24]
C.K. attended Newton North High School, and graduated in 1985. He graduated with future Friends star, Matt LeBlanc whom he would later be nominated with in the same category at the Primetime Emmy Awards multiple times.[25] After graduating from Newton North High School, C.K. worked as an auto mechanic and at a public access TV cable station in Boston.[2] According to C.K., working in public access TV gave him the tools and technical knowledge to make his short films and later his television shows. "Learning is my favorite thing", he said.[7] He also worked for a time as a cook and in a video store.[15]