Minnesotans For Sustainability©
Sustainable Society: A society that balances the environment, other life forms, and human interactions over an indefinite time period.
|
Minnesotans For Sustainability©
Sustainable Society: A society that balances the environment, other life forms, and human interactions over an indefinite time period.
|
|
|
Disinformation vs. Truth
H. Michael Sweeney*
Introduction
1.
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no
evil Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1.
Avoidance
There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. 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 and 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, 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. This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was very present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control. For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known “liar’s” testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance —the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive. Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution —very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role —the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid —and they generally put it in exactly those terms. So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or —put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and eight traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG (electronic newsgroups) application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused —reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz “confession” testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby's newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane's remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.
Proper
response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and
can make it public yourself. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known
silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the
entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain
that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those having
intelligence community ties. Example: “How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! The FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.”
Proper
response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high
opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and
any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that
demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at
Waco.
Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 -
become incredulous and indignant)? “You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet for months.”
Proper
response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet
charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and
a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen
Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of
this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is
natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light.
For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials
and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter
is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless
is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before
accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse
to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor
mongers)? Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: “If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don't exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply
deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is
perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some
considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with
respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should
know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation
tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?” Example: “You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics —does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply
guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The
Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts
and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their
veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding
slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the
messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face
of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?” Example: “This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.” Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments
or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are
worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be
emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading 'this crap',
why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion?
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 6 - hit and run)?” Example: “With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply
guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly
fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been
presented are 'lies', why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address
the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?” “You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams —for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply
your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also
fail to address issues and cite sources. Example: “Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the
issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent
than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?” Example: “Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore
the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to
truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?” Example: “Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the
true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps
you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to
help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us
feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed.
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics
(rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?” Example: “I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up.”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your
completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making
it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a
time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?” Example: “The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story —often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your
backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when
they knew it? No, despite their presence at a
courtroom testimony 'confession' by CIA operative
Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty
Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest
story of the Century, but they didn't print it, did they? Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in
Wonderland logic)?” Example: “Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?”
Proper
response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not
necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative
attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to
serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster
that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use
of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)? Example: “The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.”
Proper
response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is,
perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was
eloquently defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge.
Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even
though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand
it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to
cite the Magic Bullet. “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics.
Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet
in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented.
You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of evidence
from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the
cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - fit facts to an
alternate conclusion)?” Example: “You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?” This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it —all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.
Proper
response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons,
unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event
to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is
used against the discussion, you can respond... “You are avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention
ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the simultaneous and
mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The suspicious nature itself
tends to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the
remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish
evidence and witnesses)?” Example: “There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.” Assistant's response. “You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on...” One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one.
Proper
response: “You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your
evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional
response to a new topic —a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you
truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it
is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs. Why do
you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17-
change the subject)?” Example: “You are such an idiot to think that possible —or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel. After a drawing an emotional response: 'Ohhh... I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help...”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt
to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have
something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it —preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to
avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is
all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad
opponents)?” Example: “All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!”
Proper
response: “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume
for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker,
Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L.
Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire
reporter for the Associated Press —as being able to tell us anything useful
about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E.
Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In
Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County
Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers,
crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft
representatives a part of the crash investigative team —as a qualified party
in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, —about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Then you demand us
to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by
FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to
believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be
damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be
damned? Is there a pattern here? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use
of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand
impossible proofs)?”
Example:
Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the
Solidarists, were involved in the assassination.
Proper
response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly,
such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in
time... “You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your
information is known to have been designed to side track this issue.
As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under
oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA
operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in
Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money.
Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose 'Solidarist confession' was meant to
sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you
refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 -
false evidence)?” Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.
Proper
response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to
complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any
possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new
Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in
advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts
which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed
without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as available ONLY to
the military or intelligence community, such as
CIA's METC technology. Media has
refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand Jury process, by they way. Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read The Professional Paranoid or Phsychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control.
Proper
response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know
of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you
are not well equipped to fight this tactic. Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O. J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about —or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing?
Proper
response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in
the true issues alive and point out that the “news flap” or other evasive tactic
serves the interests of your opponents. Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.
Proper
response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential
victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create
for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event
of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information
on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see
The Professional Paranoid by this
author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to
cave in or run (same thing.) Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.
Proper
response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to
focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as
part of a deliberate cover up.
Note:
There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and
others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the
professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
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.
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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. I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:
Truth
cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom
cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human
spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to
the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world
devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits
require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely
and justly perish in an evil world. |
Please send mail to
webmaster@mnforsustain.org with questions or comments about this web site. Minnesotans For Sustainability
(MFS) is not
affiliated with any government body, private, or corporate entity.
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2004
Minnesotans For Sustainability
|