Re: Mind Control in the 21st Century

In article <memo.20060204161120.984y@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan) wrote:

The "25 RULES" offered by another Internet contributor, H. Michael
Sweeney, are well worth examining.

http://tinyurl.com/blwkj

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and the last five (or six, depending on situation) rules
are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional
disinformationist 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
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.

The important aspect of all this information is to know that
"disinformationists" exist; and that they operate with an effective scientific
method. These are not casual debaters, or simple ?contrarians.? They are an
intellectual and emotional toxin in the society. They can be defeated, but only
when they are generally known, identified as they appear; and with steps taken
to counter their nefarious ways.



INTERNET PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS
(PSYOPS)

The term, "cyberspace" represents a dramatic shift in the thought
processes of all major endeavors, but particularly when it comes to war. "War"
is no longer limited to the physical realm, as its major means of expression.

Once again, the modern psychological ?victory? formula is:

"Perception Control = Emotional Control = Mind Control"

In the undying philosophy of the Prussian military philosopher Carl von
Clausewitz (1780-1831), "War is diplomacy by other means." Intended meaning
aside, he didn?t say, "?on the battlefield." In modern global politics, the war
for the human heart and mind is a tremendous struggle, whether the effort comes
from profit-making machinery of Madison Avenue, or the "black ops" of Langley
Virginia.

Von Clausewitz left the legacy of the "trinity model" of war. In that
concept, he argued that the dynamics of the government, military and populace
would determine the outcome of war, whether the government is offensive or
defensive.

However, history leaves the legacy that the government and military can
be totally destroyed, with the remaining will of the populace being the
underlying determining factor. It is academic that the PSYOPS teams operate on
this premise.

Iraq is one such classic case; leaving the legacy that the total
destruction of a country?s military and government is a poor idea, as there is
no one in remaining authority to tell the populace to quit fighting. In the case
of Iraq, again, the Arab culture is sufficiently unique, that the American war
effort left the extremely low probability of anyone in a surviving government
delivering the "quit" message. The post-war Iraqi "resistance" speaks for
itself.

Obviously, the PSYOPS teams have serious work to do. The one lesson
which seems to escape military planners is that if the will of the populace
can?t be broken, victory is impossible. The lessons of Viet Nam, Beirut,
Mogadishu and even Northern Ireland have gone unheeded ? and, at what expense?
Conversely, we have the example of Iran; the Shah was overthrown by the simple
will of the people being re-directed! No doubt, the multitude of PSYOPS groups
took notice.

PSYOPS efforts are found in the News Coverage, Public Relations,
Propaganda, blatant PSYOPS, or the mother of all tactics, "Coercive Persuasion"
- the 'stuff' of Jonestown. The process begins with presented information, real,
distorted, imagined or manufactured.

In the human experience, with rare exception, the first presentation
(first-up) determines the long-term "perceived truth."

Perhaps, nothing can be more exemplary than the ?plumped-up? Osama bin
Laden in the conveniently "unclear" videotaped confession to 9-11. With that
tape, America went off to commit the War Crime Invasion of Afghanistan.

Enter the translation of a Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper: al-Wafd,
dated as of Wednesday, December 26, 2001 - Vol 15 No 4633

News of Bin Laden's Death
and Funeral 10 days ago

Islamabad ?


A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the
death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that
binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and
quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer
of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his
face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da
fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends
from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in
the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial
location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left
by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would
ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.

We must note the distinct ?missing-person? character against the 2004
videotape, which lacked any shadows, inferring a sophisticated production,
versus bin Laden?s pragmatic preference for caves. The image was sufficiently
mechanical as to appear to be a Hollywood special effects production. Even the
?message? lacked the expected frequent references to Allah.

Considering such as the phony 9-11 "security camera" video images of
the Pentagon ?strike,? the bin Laden videotapes fall highly suspect against his
clear denials of involvement in the events of 9-11.

With regard to the subsequent US invasions, America didn?t bother to go
to the library to look at such documents as the U.N. Charter, the Geneva
Conventions or the Nuremberg Precedents. Unfortunately, historians await the
American version of ? "But, we didn?t know!"

In the events of 9-11; before, during or after, the medium for the
psychological devices wasn?t limited to the ?conventional? mass media; the
Internet played a key role ? pro and con.

A major part of the events of 9-11 was the void of critical information
which, while abundant, was never presented; but overtly and methodically blocked
from local or mass-media dissemination.

A key indicator of such a tactic is found in Clinton?s Arkansas
criminal associations, while Governor. While the information was available, it
was never prominently presented by the mainstream mass media. Thus, he was TWICE
elected as President.

The common availability of the personal computer makes it nearly rare
to hear a person swear more by the conventional news media, than the Internet ?
the political ?second opinion.? Thus, a battle for the human heart is being
rigorously fought, with the first element of the formula, "Perception Control."

It is not the least bit surprising that the arena of military
Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) is being expanded to the Internet.


The Battlefield of Information

In all regimes, Psychological Operations are an important instrument,
used to implement the prescribed national security strategy. Not uncommonly, the
"corporate" strategy seems to operate as a profitable parallel shadow to that
national security strategy, employing its own version of Psychological
Operations, independently.

The elements of government Public Diplomacy, military Public Affairs
and Psychological Operations play a key role in the endeavor of "information
operations," ideally reinforcing each other. In theory, they are separate
functions, with unique missions.

"Public Diplomacy" is intended to be an interagency effort,
theoretically only directed at the influence of foreign audiences. That arena
employs the use of over-the-border? information dissemination, whether radio, TV
or the Internet.

The world of government-sponsored "Psychological Operations" uses
specific techniques - designed (in theory) to uniquely influence non-U.S.
audiences.

In the theory of the government game, "Public Affairs" are not supposed
to direct or manipulate the public actions or their opinion. Supposedly, Public
Affairs simply inform; theoretically, under the U.S. law, they "must be separate
and distinct" from any Psychological Operations.

In the same political theory, Public Affairs (as a unique arena) cannot
legally be used for the purpose of military deception; or as disinformation for
the digestion of foreign or domestic audiences. Nor are Public Affairs to act in
the fashion of "propaganda" or publicity designed to sway or direct public
opinion ... be included in [Department of Defense] public affairs programs."
That, according to the "Doctrine for Public Affairs in Joint Operations,"
otherwise known as "Joint Publication 3-61."

So goes the theory, anyway.

However idealistic the applicable laws may be; reality has a different
account; not always flattering to those who claim a position of integrity and
morality. For example, the events of 9-11 contained an incredible level of
Psychological Operations and "Coercive Persuasion;" still ongoing. One has only
to examine the images of the 9-11 pre-collapse damage to the Pentagon; noting
that the damage was impossible to have been done by a B-757.

Specifically, the external columns were broken at their base; and not
displaced inward. The lowest possible impact point, according to the ?official?
account, would have been approximately 18 feet. Add the missing seismic "crash"
signature and the lack of thick black smoke of burning jet fuel, coming from the
purported impact hole. However passionate and well-intended, the "witness"
testimony of an aircraft crash doesn?t find the needed physical corroboration.
As a clincher, the famous piece of aircraft skin on the Pentagon lawn was the
wrong color; add the wrong damage.

Most importantly, all legitimate investigations into the 9-11 events
were blocked from the White House, among other players. Despite the lack of
evidence, al Qaeda was sold as the 9-11 culprit.

Mix well-timed Propaganda, PSYOPS and "Coercive Persuasion" with the
correct media presentations, and the rest is history. As always, timing is key.

Coupling the most current technology with the global mass media, it is
common to see an increasing blend/overlap of information between Public Affairs
and Psychological Operations. Hence, Public Affairs is no longer a unique
function of delivering specific media products, such as magazines, newspapers
and radio/television programming. Its function now involves the task of
processing themes and messages; acting as a low-level Psychological Operations
front.

The underlying motivation is best described in the statement, "We can?t
manipulate the enemy, if you?re out there telling the truth!" Psychological
operations now mean that much.

The demand for such an evolution demands that Public Affairs,
Psychological Operations, and Public Diplomacy (radio, television, newspapers),
in addition to all other pertinent elements of information operations, be
integrated - to the greatest extent possible - and that the efforts be carefully
synchronized.

In the context of U.S. efficiency and enterprise, they need to be
integrated into a single organization. Yes, the turf-wars are bloody.

It is academic that Public Information - domestic and international -
must be consistent at all levels, in order to achieve and maintain the needed
credibility of each element. It is natural that the content of the messages
emanating from Public Affairs, Public Diplomacy and Psychological Operations
will normally differ. However, in the interest of maximum "power," the messages
are required to not appreciably contradict one another.

Still, in the world of elementary human affairs, too much consistency
generates suspicion; in the fashion of witnesses who all tell an obviously
scripted account. In particular, when the mass media is in total alignment with
governmental powers, the public suspicion can be expected to come very alive,
nigh unto dangerous.

http://tinyurl.com/blwkj


Alan

"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."

Nemesis Peace Centre

http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/protector.html

Abuse of Women and Children

http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/

Nemesis News

http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/

Absolute Anarchy

http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/

.

Quantcast