Radical Progressive Leftist Socialist spies...

[the dark]

It's been my experience that some disrupters , just like to disrupt to piss people off

And its been my experience that such behavior crosses many boundaries, including ideological ones.

[golocx4]

Um, u are paranoid. U aren't that important.

Mayor Bloomberg of NY City convinced the NY Atty General to send undercovers to Gun Shows.
When they couldn't get the regular FFL Dealers to sell them anything they worked private individuals in the parking lots.
They made several buys and then splashed a big headline that even had members of this forum saying the "Dealers should have known better"
Now all that Schumer and Bloomberg need to close the "Loop" is to get someone on a forum like this to sell a shotgun to someone that says they couldn't pass a nic check.
Beware of Trolls - Beware of a buyer that lets you think he has an order of protection, past record or says he is afraid of a nics check.
You could be the next headline "NY Undercover buys guns off of the internet" Schumer demands ending internet gun sales.
MARK MY WORD!!!

[Mark Chitty]

Mayor Bloomberg of NY City convinced the NY Atty General to send undercovers to Gun Shows.
When they couldn't get the regular FFL Dealers to sell them anything they worked private individuals in the parking lots.
They made several buys and then splashed a big headline that even had members of this forum saying the "Dealers should have known better"
Now all that Schumer and Bloomberg need to close the "Loop" is to get someone on a forum like this to sell a shotgun to someone that says they couldn't pass a nic check.
Beware of Trolls - Beware of a buyer that lets you think he has an order of protection, past record or says he is afraid of a nics check.
You could be the next headline "NY Undercover buys guns off of the internet" Schumer demands ending internet gun sales.
MARK MY WORD!!!

In that particular instance surely they would side with the people that they want to screw up in order to better gain their trust. Why would a cop get on here, be disruptive and disagreeable, and then try and get you to do something illegal?

If that is really the concern then people should probably be more worried about the guy who is patting them on the back without really having anything to add. Not the guy who seems to have thoughts and ideas that contradict some of the main stream opinions.

Isn't the point of being a spy or some kind of undercover conspirator generally to blend in so that they can gain the trust of the people they are trying to undermine or take down?

[BluesStringer]

And yeah, it does sound a little paranoid. But I can kind of see where those people were coming from. When you publicly discuss how the military should hold to their oaths and rise against the government

It occurs to me that perhaps you don't know what the oath says. If the oath says that the taker swears to rise against a usurping government, then what good is the oath if no one ever rises in opposition to, or identifies and speaks out against a usurping government?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

You mentioned before that you are a couple years away from becoming a citizen. Your oath of allegiance will be similar in wording, but identical as it relates to defending The Constitution from foreign or domestic enemies.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

The oath is to The Constitution, not to people. No one is immune from the meaning of that oath, not citizens, enlisted men, officers, politicians or even the president, though certainly a very strong case must be made to move against government officials. The same strong case that was made against King George III in the Declaration of Independence would suffice, and the overwhelming majority of the list of particular indictments in that document are happening again today, and have been happening for several decades now.

...or what you are going to do to the military or police personnel who are ordered to come and take your guns, it is bound to draw negative attention.

So it would be OK with you for police or military personnel to shoot citizens while violating The Constitution via violating the 2nd Amendment while confiscating guns, but citizens should not be allowed to defend their rights with guns? You obviously do not understand why the 2nd Amendment was written. Though rarely talked about by politicians anymore, and an absolute truism that is despised by the left in this country, defense of our rights is precisely why the right to keep and bear was guaranteed as a fundamental right of all free men. If it draws negative attention, that's because the people who give it that attention hold a negative view of having their power limited by both the law and the threat of an armed citizenry. Politicians who were Patriots to The Constitution and spent their careers upholding, defending and abiding by it in the legislation they create and make into law, would have no reason whatsoever to feel negatively about citizens who also take their oath to uphold and defend The Constitution seriously.

Jefferson said it best, as he did on many subjects:

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Publicly disagree with the politicians all you want, but if you're really going to promote that kind of behavior it's not exactly wise to do it publicly. Just because you have the right to talk about resisting the government, doesn't mean you have to exercise the right to talk about it publicly. Especially if you're going to whine about how that makes the government think you are a threat. I'm not disagreeing with what people are saying, just with how they are going about it.

Well, this is interesting. You basically scoff at the notion that conservative forums are being monitored/spied upon/infiltrated, what have you, and I provide proof that it is indeed happening, and you come back with my answering your question equates to "whining." I whined about nothing. I answered your question about what leftists might possibly gain by "spying" on conservatives, and used a first-hand experience to lend credence to my opinions on the subject. They "spy" to forward whatever they can piece together through out-of-context quoting, even mixed-and-matched quoting in my case, making thoughts from three different paragraphs appear to be one thought contained in a sentence or two. They forward these butchered quotes to both private and government organizations so they can be disseminated out to the public to foment distrust and misconceptions about who conservatives are and what we believe. I just answered your question, I didn't whine.

For the record, I do still think the 'war on guns' is being blown out of proportion.

And you're still wrong.

The 'political actions being taken to restrict and control the public ownership of firearms' isn't quite as catchy, but I now better understand that it has to be blown out of proportion to get people to help fight against it.

You quite obviously understand very little about what goes on around you. Who is "fighting" against it? Literally no one. If you're using the word "fighting" as a synonym to the word "opposing," then whose rhetoric is overblown here? Fighting is a physical action. Opposing, in this context, is nothing more than political speech and/or activism. One will certainly be a crime, and can even be an act of treason, the other is unambiguously The American Way.

So you use overblown rhetoric to get your point across about overblown rhetoric. Kinda cancels itself out to my way of looking at it.

As for what this board is devoted to, I thought it was devoted to "Anything to do with Politics EXCEPT 2nd Amendment issues," not unwavering support for the "NRA and the constitutional concepts and precepts."

I was speaking of USA Carry, not just the Politics sub-forum. Try to keep up.

Of course you are one of the people that has accused me of lying about my beliefs and my agenda

Are you sure about that? I find much of what you state about ideology to be confused and amorphous, but I don't recall saying you were lying about your beliefs. If I did actually accuse you of lying about your own beliefs, perhaps you can cite it and if it's as you say in the unequivocal context you assert here, I would apologize for it.

...and have even suggested I not bother posting here anymore.

See above. Same applies. I find this assertion more far-fetched than the last one. But I have made posts in my online career that I shouldn't have made for one reason or another. If I really said that to you, show me and I'll retract it and apologize for it.

So it makes sense that you don't you think of this as a public forum for public discussion of varying and different opinions; you are obviously here for the mental circle jerk.

Sorry, buddy. You're not my type.

HAHAHAHA.......Oh man, so you thought something I said was intended as making a pass at you? Like I said, I find a lot of what you say confused to say the least. There's a good example right there.

Blues

[BluesStringer]

Sorry, did not know a person needed to be a "devotee" of some specific dogma to post here.

That is a ridiculous interpretation of anything I said. One, I asked a question. The same question, in fact, that Mark asked in his OP.

Two, I have no power or authority to tell anyone what they need to be a devotee of to post here.

Apparently, asking the same question that the OP asked is a "bullying tactic."

It's human nature to be uncomfortable with opposing viewpoints to some variable extent. Some people just have real small comfort zones.

Small comfort zones indeed.

Blues

[Mark Chitty]

It occurs to me that perhaps you don't know what the oath says. If the oath says that the taker swears to rise against a usurping government, then what good is the oath if no one ever rises in opposition to, or identifies and speaks out against a usurping government?



You mentioned before that you are a couple years away from becoming a citizen. Your oath of allegiance will be similar in wording, but identical as it relates to defending The Constitution from foreign or domestic enemies.



The oath is to The Constitution, not to people. No one is immune from the meaning of that oath, not citizens, enlisted men, officers, politicians or even the president, though certainly a very strong case must be made to move against government officials. The same strong case that was made against King George III in the Declaration of Independence would suffice, and the overwhelming majority of the list of particular indictments in that document are happening again today, and have been happening for several decades now.



So it would be OK with you for police or military personnel to shoot citizens while violating The Constitution via violating the 2nd Amendment while confiscating guns, but citizens should not be allowed to defend their rights with guns? You obviously do not understand why the 2nd Amendment was written. Though rarely talked about by politicians anymore, and an absolute truism that is despised by the left in this country, defense of our rights is precisely why the right to keep and bear was guaranteed as a fundamental right of all free men. If it draws negative attention, that's because the people who give it that attention hold a negative view of having their power limited by both the law and the threat of an armed citizenry. Politicians who were Patriots to The Constitution and spent their careers upholding, defending and abiding by it in the legislation they create and make into law, would have no reason whatsoever to feel negatively about citizens who also take their oath to uphold and defend The Constitution seriously.

Jefferson said it best, as he did on many subjects:





Well, this is interesting. You basically scoff at the notion that conservative forums are being monitored/spied upon/infiltrated, what have you, and I provide proof that it is indeed happening, and you come back with my answering your question equates to "whining." I whined about nothing. I answered your question about what leftists might possibly gain by "spying" on conservatives, and used a first-hand experience to lend credence to my opinions on the subject. They "spy" to forward whatever they can piece together through out-of-context quoting, even mixed-and-matched quoting in my case, making thoughts from three different paragraphs appear to be one thought contained in a sentence or two. They forward these butchered quotes to both private and government organizations so they can be disseminated out to the public to foment distrust and misconceptions about who conservatives are and what we believe. I just answered your question, I didn't whine.



And you're still wrong.



You quite obviously understand very little about what goes on around you. Who is "fighting" against it? Literally no one. If you're using the word "fighting" as a synonym to the word "opposing," then whose rhetoric is overblown here? Fighting is a physical action. Opposing, in this context, is nothing more than political speech and/or activism. One will certainly be a crime, and can even be an act of treason, the other is unambiguously The American Way.

So you use overblown rhetoric to get your point across about overblown rhetoric. Kinda cancels itself out to my way of looking at it.



I was speaking of USA Carry, not just the Politics sub-forum. Try to keep up.



Are you sure about that? I find much of what you state about ideology to be confused and amorphous, but I don't recall saying you were lying about your beliefs. If I did actually accuse you of lying about your own beliefs, perhaps you can cite it and if it's as you say in the unequivocal context you assert here, I would apologize for it.



See above. Same applies. I find this assertion more far-fetched than the last one. But I have made posts in my online career that I shouldn't have made for one reason or another. If I really said that to you, show me and I'll retract it and apologize for it.



HAHAHAHA.......Oh man, so you thought something I said was intended as making a pass at you? Like I said, I find a lot of what you say confused to say the least. There's a good example right there.

Blues

Two people, one of them you, have brought up two seemingly legitimate reasons why someone might actually try to 'spy' on this forum. I apologize for not acknowledging that immediately.

That said, I didn't disagree with how some of the people on this forum have decided they will respond if the government tries to confiscate their property. I was simply trying to state that if you don't want to be seen as a threat to the government, you probably shouldn't talk about openly opposing them with acts of violence. It's simple logic that if you make threats you will be seen as a threat, regardless of of who is right or the context under which the threats were made. At no point did I state how I would respond if police and or military personnel were to start shooting innocent civilians and confiscating firearms.

As for speaking of the whole forum and not just about this board. I'm not sure you have the right to speak to the intentions of the people that created this site, whether in its entirety or this specific sub-section. Maybe you do, I don't know. I got the impression that this site was supposed to be an educational resource for gun owners and have treated it as such. However, I can't speak of the intentions of the creators of the site because I don't know them. Perhaps you can introduce us some time since you are apparently able to blatantly state their intended purpose.

[Mark Chitty]

What do you gain by challenging the NRA and the constitutional concepts and precepts on a board devoted to unwavering support for all three?

Blues

Yeah, it's a question. But it's a question loaded with your apparent understanding that this board, be it the board in its entirety or this sub-section, is devoted to unwavering support of the NRA and the constitutional concepts and precepts.

That is a ridiculous interpretation of anything I said. One, I asked a question. The same question, in fact, that Mark asked in his OP.

Two, I have no power or authority to tell anyone what they need to be a devotee of to post here.

Apparently, asking the same question that the OP asked is a "bullying tactic."



Small comfort zones indeed.

Blues

That was a pretty apt interpretation of what you said, because while you were asking a question you also made a statement. A statement that can really only be interpreted as you seeing this forum as a place for those that devote unwavering support to the NRA and the constitutional concepts and precepts.

If you were asking the same question I asked in the OP you were also further implying that I am some kind of spy. Very clever, and completely in line with what I've been saying.

You've pretty much explained your whole attitude toward me, and probably others you've behaved toward in a similar fashion. Feel free to keep backtracking, but you've pretty blatantly stated that you think this forum is only for you and yours.

Until the people who own and operate this website tell me otherwise, I'm here to tell you differently. I'm not yet a citizen but I've lived in this country for almost half my life. Unlike you I wasn't born with the rights and privileges of the constitution, I had to work to get here and then I had to prove my worth here to earn them. I have earned those rights, which means I've earned the right to post freely here. That doesn't make me any better or worse than anyone, but hopefully speaks to how adamantly I will fight for those rights because it's quite common for people to better appreciate and more fervently defend that which they worked for rather than that which they were given.

It's one thing to act as though you are intellectually or morally superior, but it is completely out of line to act as though you have some sort of right to define a public forum as being a little safe haven for your particular brand of close minded arrogance.

[BluesStringer]

Yeah, it's a question. But it's a question loaded with your apparent understanding that this board, be it the board in its entirety or this sub-section, is devoted to unwavering support of the NRA and the constitutional concepts and precepts.

Mark, I mean really, you have to be purposely obtuse to believe that the owner of this site doesn't actively promote a devotion to the NRA when simply typing those three letters in here automatically converts them into a link! I mean, WAKE UP! You're arguing over minutiae. If you don't know what the site owner's intentions are for this site, at least as it regards support for the NRA and the 2nd Amendment (constitutional concepts and precepts), you have simply got to be the densest person I've ever encountered on the internet.

The true idiocy of this little tangent you've seized upon is exposed by the fact that of all the regular posters on this site that you might have chosen to argue the trivial point with, I am among the least supportive of the NRA. For me, making a statement about what this site is intended to support is just a simple statement of obvious fact, and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not I share those intentions or devotions. I've had short conversations with strong NRA supporters on this site in which I've voiced my concerns about them, but I don't dwell on our differences in that regard because I have no interest in just pissin' in their corn flakes over the non-issue. You however, say that anyone who thinks as they do don't really think at all, because the NRA does their thinking for them! And you have the gall to say I'm arrogant? Wake up Mark.

If you were asking the same question I asked in the OP you were also further implying that I am some kind of spy. Very clever, and completely in line with what I've been saying.

Bull$h!t. I asked only what you gained from consistently posting contrary to the obvious tenor of the board. You actually attempted to answer in one post, and are now taking a different, second shot at answering it in this post. Wake up Mark.

You've pretty much explained your whole attitude toward me, and probably others you've behaved toward in a similar fashion. Feel free to keep backtracking, but you've pretty blatantly stated that you think this forum is only for you and yours.

Where have I backtracked? I said I would apologize if I said the things you accused me of saying. I said "show me" and all you got is "You've pretty much explained....?" My gut told me I didn't say those things, and still does, but even if I did, you certainly have not established that I said anything close to what you assert. Wake up Mark.

Until the people who own and operate this website tell me otherwise, I'm here to tell you differently.

Tell me differently than what you made up that I said? Wake up Mark.

I'm not yet a citizen but I've lived in this country for almost half my life. Unlike you I wasn't born with the rights and privileges of the constitution, I had to work to get here and then I had to prove my worth here to earn them.

What did you have to do to prove your worth or earn your rights other than enter the country legally?

I have earned those rights, which means I've earned the right to post freely here. That doesn't make me any better or worse than anyone, but hopefully speaks to how adamantly I will fight for those rights because it's quite common for people to better appreciate and more fervently defend that which they worked for rather than that which they were given.

Where do you come up with this stuff? The tone of that paragraph reeks of someone who thinks their claim to the rights of this country are superior or more justifiably exercised than someone who was born here. Wake up Mark. You're not nearly as special as you think you are.

Oh, and I categorically deny that anything I said was intended to imply that you don't have a right to post here. As another poster correctly pointed out though, I, and everybody else, has every right in the world to reply to what you say with incredulity over how stunningly vapid much of what you post is.

It's one thing to act as though you are intellectually or morally superior, but it is completely out of line to act as though you have some sort of right to define a public forum as being a little safe haven for your particular brand of close minded arrogance.

Yeah, how arrogant of me to notice that every time I type the letters "NRA" a link to sign up with that organization is automatically generated. I mean, it's so obvious that the owner of a site called "USA Carry" might actually not be devoted to the constitutional precept of the 2nd Amendment and the NRA, right? Wake up Mark.

Blues

[whitefeather]

Mark, I mean really, you have to be purposely obtuse to believe that the owner of this site doesn't actively promote a devotion to the NRA when simply typing those three letters in here automatically converts them into a link! I mean, WAKE UP! You're arguing over minutiae. If you don't know what the site owner's intentions are for this site, at least as it regards support for the NRA and the 2nd Amendment (constitutional concepts and precepts), you have simply got to be the densest person I've ever encountered on the internet.

Blues...I have been away for a few days and read this thread in it's entirety. Your response to MarkChitty is well stated. Being a member of this forum that disagrees with you on certain subjects, I have always appreciated the time and effort you put into your posts.

Mark reminds me of a user on another forum I belong to. It is a fan sports forum that is devoted to one team. There is a poster that periodically enters that forum but is a fan of a team that is a 50+ year rival. His posts are an attempt to gain a recognition of his team members abilities. He expresses a belief that fans are over zealous,that rivalries generate a foundation for potential fan disorder and that we should just appreciate the players of the sport. When pummeled by many on the forum, he is indignant with a sense of intellectual superiority. Troll?

Mark needs to agree to disagree on certain subjects and move on to those areas of the forum he can provide useful information. If he trolls a thread such as this, man up, be prepared for the potential outcome.

[tcox4freedom]

This is off another forum.

its training and theres now 41 places in the USA ( all ex acorn groups by the way ) where they teach this , free , some even pay you to attend .. NGO funding does a lot eh ...

from their own instructional courses

Quote:

There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.' Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING' If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items. Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING' A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.' Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION' Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator. Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION' Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities. Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING' Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution. Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL' It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes. CONCLUSION Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.

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 complementarypacks 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 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. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the
response time factor. 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:

a) 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.



b) 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.



c) 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.

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression



Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down
anyone . when groups lacks an effective, fact-based defense,
other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends
heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition
party.



1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.



2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.



3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If,
in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the
suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe
the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or
"hysterical.") You really believe Obama was born in kenya ? you fool !!



4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest
charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or
plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all
the charges, real and fanciful alike.



5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter,"
"kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use
heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and
defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then
carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus
maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.



6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly
that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing
a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to
over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are
not).



7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can
be very useful.



8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."



9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking
the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor
and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal
"mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position
quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control,
the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully
limited markets.



10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately
unknowable.



11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly
rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely
free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged,
they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such
evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy
leaker and a press who would report the leak.



12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was
murdered, who did it and why?



13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing
distractions.



14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This
is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.



15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute
the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous,
source.



16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose"
scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents
and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job
who will pretend to spend their own money.



17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What
could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news
groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?"
Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines,
radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters
and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would
be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

The truth is "Radical" Progressives have a LOT to gain by posting on forums like this.

-