Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:   The Rules of Disinformation  
(Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)  by H. Michael 
Sweeney
 copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
 (Revised April 2000) 

 Permission to reprint/distribute hereby  granted for any non 
commercial use  provided information reproduced in its entirety and 
with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government 
related info, visit the Author's Web site:
 <http://www.proparanoid.com> 

 Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation 


 Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth  Suppression by David 
Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate  in the world of 
dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth 
when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, 
includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with 
respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime 
involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there 
will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against  those 
seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There 
are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as 
revealed here. Also included with this material are seven 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 
to) 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 
evaluations... 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 ofevidence 
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 ledastray 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. 

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 anydiscussion 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 
latter 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 
seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG 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.[examples & response- 
http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html]

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. Offer to provide a complete copy of 
the rule set upon request   (see permissions statement at end): 


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation 

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) 
rules are generally not directly within the ability of the 
traditional disinfo artist 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 which 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 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 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 isn'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 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, 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 and 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 
theircharacter 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. .

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: