From pollution to politics, the
era of deception and duplicity has reached new heights and hijacked
almost every form of media in the world. In the last frontiers for
truth such as the internet, disinformation operations are in full swing
to discredit and destroy any semblance of authentic and factual
information available to the public.
How many more lies will people
around the world accept as truth? Some say a global awakening is taking
place, but at what cost? Will it take the destruction of most of the
earth and its resources before people are enlightened?
The escalating media and political
reports are so far fetched, cunning, and so beyond reality, it's as
if each is trying to top the other with one sinister plot after the
next. To demonstrate the outright lies by national governments and the
media, let's take three examples from the last year alone, including
the H1N1 scandal, airport body scanners and the BP oil disaster.
The H1N1 Scandal
Last year, the H1N1 scandal reached
its pinnacle in the fall of 2009 when the world united on the internet
with a consensus and practical understanding of the World Health
Organization's
orchestratration to deceive the masses.
From
radio, internet, television, newspapers, magazines,
outdoor posters, signage and promotions, you could
not escape the
flu hype
campaigns so diligently pursued by all the
malicious agendas at play who only wanted one thing - to
promote a dangerous H1N1 vaccine. After
hundreds of reports exposed the criminal activity by all levels of government, we left the same people in power to do it all over again.
According to preliminary reports,
another round of pandemic vaccine campaigns are scheduled for the
2010/2011 season and they're already underway. However, there appears
to be a recombination that has
changed the H1N1 lab created virus into a more lethal form and it is not a hoax, but it may be yet another
CDC lab experiment.
The CDC has recently issued a
Health Advisory in connection with two summer outbreaks of H3N2 in Iowa. Other reports from Russia and
India
indicate that a real epidemic may be upon us if the virus steadily
recombines and acquires new genetics. Even though a new strain may have
accidentally evolved in eggs, reassortment of H1N1-H5N1 has been a
legitimate concern for years. The WHO first suggested the
reassortment of H1N1-H5N1 in 2004.
If this is really the case, how will
the public react after all the lies from health agencies who have
sworn to protect us? Will they hype another vaccine and if so, will the
public even respond?
Body Scanners
They've been approved all over the
world and marketed as the next greatest airport
scanning technology. The U.S., U.K., Russia,
Australia, Europe and Canada have all installed airport body scanners
which have potentially devastating health effects.
Many of these scanners are
reportedly using terahertz (THz) waves, the radiation
that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum
between microwaves and infrared.
Evidence
suggests that although the forces generated are tiny,
resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA,
creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly
interfere with processes such as gene expression and
DNA replication.
As the path toward rolling out wider use of whole-body scanners in U.S. airports ran through the White House,
Obama
expedited their deployment because the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) didn't
need legislation from Congress to start using the devices at any of
the 560 U.S. airports.
The White House ignored all the
scientific evidence presented which suggested negative health effects.
Politicians and regulatory agencies then covered up the bad publicity
on
naked body scanners and focused on the presumed benefits under the guise of public safety.
Privacy commisioners and airport
authorities have also insisted that there were no risks of images being
stored or personal details being revealed to security screeners. Now
there's new evidence to show that the scanners can do just that.
According to a
CNET report,
another federal agency, the U.S. Marshall's service, admitted that it
had actually stored over 30,000 images recorded by a full-body
scanner used at a Florida courthouse.
A watchdog group called the
Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) obtained over 100 of the images and states on its web site that,
"The images, which are routinely captured by the federal agency,
prove that body scanning devices store and record images of
individuals stripped naked." The group has filed a lawsuit to suspend
the deployment of body scanners at airports.
EPIC also discovered that the TSA
actually specified to manufacturers that the machines have the ability
to send and store images. The TSA says that these functions are only
for testing and training and
insists on its web site that the airport body scanners are delivered to airports with storage and recording functions disabled.
Again, the upper levels of the
echelon are caught lying and deceiving, yet they are still left to their
own devices to further manipulate and continue misrepresenting facts to
the gullible public.
BP Oil Disaster
When news unfolded about the April
20, 2010 BP oil disaster, it went from bad to worse. Instead of
immediately mobilizing for action in the face of a massive public
health threat, the response was to cover-up, deny and respond with
ignorance. After all the public will always believe them, or so they
thought.
The Obama administration,
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, U.S. Coast Guard commandant admiral Thad
Allen, energy and climate-change policy adviser Carol Browner, BP and
all their contituents conspired to deliberately mislead the public from
the inception of the disaster to present day. What's worse is they all
agreed to further disseminate toxins in the Gulf by spraying 1.8 to 2
million gallons of the neurotoxin Corexit which was exposed by over a
hundred scientists,
toxicologists
and other experts who have unequivocally classified the irresponsible
aerial spraying of the chemical dispersant as a large-scale,
uncontrolled non-consensual human and environmental experiment is being
conducted in the Gulf region.
The
media was grossly censoring the extent of the devastation in the Gulf.
The poisons--oil and corexit are destined to spread globally, but
honest reporting was and still is restricted, and many independent
investigators have been arrested. Read
30 Facts Evidencing that The Gulf Oil Crisis Was Planned.
On June 12, 2010,
The Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC) released "
Risk of Global Climate Change By BP Oil Spill",
a document detailing how the BP spill may cause irreparable damage to
the Gulf Stream global climate thermoregulation activity. Read
Gulf Loop Current Destroyed: May Lead To Shut Down of Atlantic Thermoregulation, Rapid Cooling.
According to Dr. Gianluigi
Zangari, an Italian theoretical physicist, and major complex
and chaotic systems analyst at the Frascati National
Laboratories in Italy, the Loop Current in the Gulf of Mexico
has stalled as a consequence of the BP oil spill disaster. Zangari
notes that the effects of this stall have also begun to
spread to the Gulf Stream. This is because the Loop Current is a
crucial element of the Gulf Stream itself and why it is commonly
referred to as the “main engine” of the Stream.
The concern now, is
whether or not natural processes can re-establish the stalled
Loop Current. If not, we could begin to see global crop
failures as early as 2011.
Zangari's assessment is
based on daily monitoring of real-time data oceanographic
satellite public data feeds called “Real-Time Mesoscale
Altimetry” from the Jason, Topex/Poseidon, Geosat, Follow-On,
ERS-2 and Envisat satellites.
These satellite feeds are captured and made publicly available by NASA, NOAA and by the
Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research (CCAR) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
The CCAR is now being accused of
scientific fraud and tampering of data directly associated with the
events surrounding the Loop Current phenomenon and its current
anomalies. Various reporters have spear-headed the charge including
radio personality Dr. Bill Deagle who has featured Dr. Zangari on his
radio show
The Nutrimedical Report where he detailed the events leading up to the destruction of the Loop Current in the Gulf.
Dr. Zangari has stated that he will no longer use CCAR data due to its unreliability.
Organized and Professional Disinformation Operations
Well-funded and highly-organized
disinformation operations are in full-swing throughout the internet.
From forums to comment boards and even professional websites that have
only one purpose: Defame, distract, and destroy the truth.
However organized, the tactics are
very predictable in a world filled with lies and half-truths. This,
sadly, includes every day news media, one
of the worst offenders with respect to being
a source of disinformation.
Disinformation campaigns are
launched against those seeking to uncover and
expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. The H1N1 scandal was a prime
example of how hundreds of operations can be launched to sway opinions
on the facts. For every fact-based article on the
realities of the H1N1 vaccine,
there were both very primitive and sophisticated counters on message
boards, comment forums and hundreds of alternative and mainstream
websites.
Stephen Barrett's
Quackwatch.com and supporters such as
skeptic.org.uk and
skepticblog.com
are examples of websites which promote both synthetic and organic
disinformation on almost any topic that does not concur with mainstream
thought.
There are specific tactics
which disinfo artists tend to apply, as H. Michael
Sweeney has brilliantly detailed. Also included
with this material are eight common traits of the disinfo artist
which may also prove useful in
identifying players and motives. The more a
particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the
rules, the more likely they are a
professional disinfo artist with a vested
motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing
disinformation, so even "good guys" can be
suspect in many cases.
A rational person participating
as one interested in the truth will
evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are
solid and conclusive, that one or more
links are weak and need further
development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more
links can be broken, usually invalidating
(but not necessarily so, if parallel
links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link
was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the
argument. The game is played by raising
issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably
to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a
disinfo artist to interfere with these
evaluation... to at least make people
think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or
to propose alternative solutions leading
away from the truth. Often, by simply
impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation
tactics, a level of victory is assured because
apathy increases with time and rhetoric.
It would seem true in almost
every instance, that if one cannot break
the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth
has won out. If the chain is broken either a new
link must be forged, or a whole new chain
developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one
must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame
in being the creator or supporter of a
failed solution, chain, or link, if done
with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach.
While it is understandable that a person can
become emotionally involved with a
particular side of a given issue, it is really
unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo
artist will seek to emotionalize and
chastise any failure (real or false
claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent
discussion in general.
It is the disinfo artist and
those who may pull their strings (those
who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent
rational and complete examination of any
chain of evidence which would hang them.
Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be
overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are
professional in the art of lies and
deceit, such as the intelligence community and the
professional criminal (often the same people or at least
working together), tend to apply fairly
well defined and observable tools in this
process. However, the public at large is not well armed against
such weapons, and is often easily led astray by
these time-proven tactics. Remarkably,
not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN
TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the
players themselves understand the rules
of the game.
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 to 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' 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 critical 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 aren'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 facts 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 an 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
News Group (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
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Remarkably, even media and law
enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal
with these issues. For the most part, only the players
themselves understand the rules of the game.
Marco Torres
is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate
for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and
Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics
such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and
health policy.
