THE RULES OF DISINFORMANTION--THE POLITICIAN'S CREDO

Note:The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules aregenerally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artistto apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at theleadership, key players, or planning level of the organized crime syndicatewe know as government.
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 theissues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant./ Avoid discussing key issues andinstead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as beingcritical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known asthe "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. Otherderogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This methodworks especially well with a silent press, because the only way the publiccan learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you canassociate 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'sargument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and theopponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply existsbased on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation,or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify theirsignificance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all thecharges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion ofthe real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule./ This is also knownas the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify asvariants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles suchas "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists","conspiracybuffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexualdeviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fearof gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run./ In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponentor the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can befielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internetand letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of newidentities 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 toimply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or otherbias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on thedefensive.
8. Invoke authority./ Claim for yourself or associate yourself withauthority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" toillustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so withoutdiscussing 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 aconclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news./ A derivative of the strawman usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will makecharges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where itcan be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have itdealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequentcharges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then beassociated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehashwithout need to address current issues -- so much the better where theopponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions./ Using a minor matter orelement of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor thatsome innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents haveseized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and implygreater 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 moreserious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution./ Drawing upon the overall umbrella of eventssurrounding the issue, and the multitude of players and events, paint theentire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise followingthe matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to addressthe actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic./ Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoningbackwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actualmaterial fact.
14. Demand complete solutions./ Avoid the issues by requiring opponents tosolve the problem at hand completely, a ploy which works best for itemsqualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions./ This requires creativethinking unless the act was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence./ If it does not exist, it is not fact, and youwon't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject./ Usually in connection with one of the other ployslisted here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive orcontroversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, moremanageable 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 anythingelse, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responseswhich will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, andgenerally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will youavoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if theiremotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues bythen focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs./ This is perhaps avariant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may bepresented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant anddemand 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 besafely destroyed or withheld, such as a shredded govt. study). 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 cluesdesigned and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as usefultools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works bestwhen the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and thefacts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a parliamentary committee study, Supreme court test, or otherempowered investigative body.// Subvert the (process) to your benefit andeffectively neutralize all sensitive issues without true public input. Onceconvened, the evidence and testimony are required to be acceptable to thecommittee/court as evidence when properly handled, damaging evidence can bediscarded. For instance, if you own the judicial/committee officials, it caninsure an official hearing hears no useful evidence and that the evidence issealed, refused or buried and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Oncea favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the govt.innocent, but it can also be used to obtain authority when seeking to extendgovt. powers) 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 viascientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludesfavorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do soauthoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions./ If the above does not seem to be workingto distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage ofunstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat themas such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics./ If the above methods do not prevail, considerremoving opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that theneed to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their meetingwith an accident, an arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of damaging information, or merely by properintimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish or seek less contentious employment./ If you are a key holderof dirty secrets or otherwise overly operationally illuminated and you thinkthe heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Find acozy non controversial plumb in the public or private sector (secured withyour party loyalty) and evade the heat your policies have created. Or if youreally F****ED up a lot of people....vacate to a third world dictatorshipthat understands your brand of politics where your tax swollen bank accountwill allow you to live like a king.

[snarfed from an email forwarded by jfa]