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