Compare OSA to a US Government Psychological Operations Manual (Declassified)

Discussion in 'Office of Special Affairs' started by Lermanet_com, Jun 4, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

    The following excerpts are taken verbatim from a once classified US Government program to destabilize the government of Nicaragua. I stumbled upon this document on Cryptome.org and due to my familiarity with the well known fraud dba scientology, reading it, had a profound effect upon me. I will attempt to link to illustrate some of the instances of identical operations used by scientology.

    PREFACE Titled "Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare"
    Link to PDF on Cryptome.org

    [Note: See scientology's OPERATIONS PLANNING and Frank Oliver's Scientology Intelligence Pack

    "..viewed as the military target of guerilla warfare, the most critical point of the human being is the mind. Once the mind has been reached, the *political animal* has been vanquished, without necessarily having received any shots."

    "The concept of guerilla warfare as a political war turns Psychological Operations in the factor that determines results. The target, then, are the minds of the population, the entire population"

    "This book is a guerilla training manual for Psychological Operations"

    "It will also mean than hunger, cold, fatigue and insecurity will have a meaning, psychologically, in the struggle for the cause, because of constant orientation."

    [Note: Reminds me of those kids running about 18 hours a day in the Sea Org in Clearwater...]

    Section Titled "Armed Propaganda"

    "Armed propaganda includes every action performed, and the good impression which this...force may give will result in the population having a positive attitude towards those forces....Armed propaganda improves the behavior of the population towards its author, and is not achieved by force."

    "The development and control of 'front' organizations is carried out through internal subjective (concealed) control, through group meetings of the "internal cadres,"

    [Note: see Scientology Front Groups, scientology GAS members and OT Committees]

    "Established citizens--doctors, attorneys, businessmen, teachers, etc.--will be recruited initially as "Social Crusaders" in typically "innocuous" movements in the area of operations." When their "involvement" with the clandestine organization is revealed to them, this exerts psychological pressure on them so they can be used as "internal cadres" in groups to which the already belong or groups which they could join.

    Then through a gradual and skilful process, they will receive instruction in persuasion techniques for the control of target groups...."

    [See: Tone Scale Manipulation]

    Control of Meetings and Mass Assemblies

    "The control of mass meetings in support of guerilla warfare is carried out internally through a covert commando element, bodyguards, messengers, shock troops (incident initiators), poster carriers (Also used to give signals), and slogan shouters, all under the control of the external commando element."
    [Notes: (External commando element could easily read scientology's OSA's DSA) and see Gary Weber's apology to the citizens of Clearwater and to Mayor Gabe Cazares for amongst other things the disruption of the Mayor's meeting at the VFW..]

    To be continued
    Arnie Lerma
     
  2. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

    Re:Strategies for Perception Management

    Strategies

    There are nine strategies for perception management. These include:

    Preparation — Having clear goals and knowing the ideal position you want people to hold.
    Credibility — Make sure all of your information is consistent, often using prejudices or expectations to increase credibility.
    Multichannel support — Have multiple arguments and fabricated facts to reinforce your information.
    Centralized control — Employing entities such as propaganda ministries or bureaus.
    Security — The nature of the deception campaign is known by few.
    Flexibility — The deception campaign adapts and changes over time as needs change.
    Coordination — The organization or propaganda ministry is organized in a hierarchical pattern in order to maintain consistent and synchronized distribution of information.
    Concealment — Contradicting information is destroyed.
    Untruthful statements — Fabricate the truth.[4]

    LINK
     
  3. RBMM

    RBMM Patron

    The following are methods of denial, as described by psychology, specifically 'argument fallacy'. See if you have notice any of these tricks being by DM....

    [Source: Wikipedia]

    Informal fallacies – arguments that are fallacious for reasons other than structural (formal) flaws and which usually require examination of the argument's content.[12]

    • Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true).[13]
    • Argument from repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore
    • Argument from scripture (Spider-man fallacy) - claiming that because there is some truth in a piece of text (such as a factual city or factual historical figure), that everything mentioned in the text must, by default, be "historical fact".
    • Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on silence of opponent, failing to give proof, based on "lack of evidence"
    • Argumentum verbosium – See Proof by verbosity, below.
    • Begging the question (petitio principii) – where the conclusion of an argument is implicitly or explicitly assumed in one of the premises[14]
    • (shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
    • Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause
    • Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.[15]
    • Correlation does not imply causation (cum hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.[16]
    • Correlative-based fallacies
    • Equivocation – the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time)[18]
    • Ecological fallacy – inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong.[20]
    • Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.[21]
    • Fallacy of composition – assuming that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole[22]
    • Fallacy of division – assuming that something true of a thing must also be true of all or some of its parts[23]
    • False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.[24]
    • If-by-whiskey – an argument that supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive.
    • Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum) – someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.
    • Ludic fallacy – the belief that the outcomes of a non-regulated random occurrences can be encapsulated by a statistic; a failure to take into account unknown unknowns in determining the probability of an event's taking place.[25]
    • Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification[26]) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
    • False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument
    • Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct[28]
    • Gambler's fallacy – the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event. If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is "due to land on tails" is incorrect.[29]
    • Historian's fallacy – occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.[30] (Not to be confused with presentism, which is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas, such as moral standards, are projected into the past.)
    • Homunculus fallacy – where a "middle-man" is used for explanation, this usually leads to regressive middle-man. Explanations without actually explaining the real nature of a function or a process. Instead, it explains the concept in terms of the concept itself, without first defining or explaining the original concept.[31]
    • Incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison
    • Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
    • Ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.[32]
    • Kettle logic – using multiple inconsistent arguments to defend a position.
    • Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
    • Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded
    • Nirvana fallacy (perfect solution fallacy) – when solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect.
    • Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
    • Petitio principii – see begging the question
    • Post hoc ergo propter hoc Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" (false cause, coincidental correlation, correlation without causation) – X happened then Y happened; therefore X caused Y[33]
    • Proof by verbosity (argumentum verbosium, proof by intimidation) – submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. (See also Gish Gallop and argument from authority.)
    • Prosecutor's fallacy – a low probability of false matches does not mean a low probability of some false match being found
    • Psychologist's fallacy – an observer presupposes the objectivity of his own perspective when analyzing a behavioral event
    • Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.[34]
    • Regression fallacy – ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.
    • Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea.
    • Retrospective determinism – the argument that because some event has occurred, its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand
    • Shotgun argumentation - the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can't possibly respond to all of them.[35]
    • Special pleading – where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption
    • Wrong direction – cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.[36]
     
  4. RBMM

    RBMM Patron

    [SIZE=+3]List of common fallacies[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=-1]Compiled by Jim Walker[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=-1]originated: 27 July 1997[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]additions made: 01 Dec. 2009[/SIZE]

    You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds.

    -Robert A. Wilson

    When arguing with someone in an attempt to get at an answer or an explanation, you may come across a person who makes logical fallacies. Such discussions may prove futile. You might try asking for evidence and independent confirmation or provide other hypotheses that give a better or simpler explanation. If this fails, try to pinpoint the problem of your arguer's position. You might spot the problem of logic that prevents further exploration and attempt to inform your arguer about his fallacy. The following briefly describes some of the most common fallacies:



    ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

    appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

    argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

    appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

    appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

    argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam): using the words of an "expert" or authority as the bases of the argument instead of using the logic or evidence that supports an argument. (e.g., Professor so-and-so believes in creation-science.) Simply because an authority makes a claim does not necessarily mean he got it right. If an arguer presents the testimony from an expert, look to see if it accompanies reason and sources of evidence behind it.

    Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): an argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people believe that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution.

    argument from adverse consequences: (e.g., We should judge the accused as guilty, otherwise others will commit similar crimes) Just because a repugnant crime or act occurred, does not necessarily mean that a defendant committed the crime or that we should judge him guilty. (Or: disasters occur because God punishes non-believers; therefore, we should all believe in God) Just because calamities or tragedies occur, says nothing about the existence of gods or that we should believe in a certain way.

    argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat. (e.g., If you don't believe in God, you'll burn in hell)

    argumentum ad ignorantiam: A misleading argument used in reliance on people's ignorance.

    argumentum ad populum: An argument aimed to sway popular support by appealing to sentimental weakness rather than facts and reasons.

    bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something. For example many people during the Black plague believed that demons caused disease. The number of believers say nothing at all about the cause of disease.

    begging the question (or assuming the answer): (e.g., We must encourage our youth to worship God to instill moral behavior.) But does religion and worship actually produce moral behavior?

    circular reasoning: stating in one's proposition that which one aims to prove. (e.g. God exists because the Bible says so; the Bible exists because God influenced it.)

    composition fallacy: when the conclusion of an argument depends on an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole or vice versa. (e.g., Humans have consciousness and human bodies and brains consist of atoms; therefore, atoms have consciousness. Or: a word processor program consists of many bytes; therefore a byte forms a fraction of a word processor.)

    confirmation bias (similar to observational selection): This refers to a form of selective thinking that focuses on evidence that supports what believers already believe while ignoring evidence that refutes their beliefs. Confirmation bias plays a stronger role when people base their beliefs upon faith, tradition and prejudice. For example, if someone believes in the power of prayer, the believer will notice the few "answered" prayers while ignoring the majority of unanswered prayers (which would indicate that prayer has no more value than random chance at worst or a placebo effect, when applied to health effects, at best).

    confusion of correlation and causation: (e.g., More men play chess than women, therefore, men make better chess players than women. Or: Children who watch violence on TV tend to act violently when they grow up.) But does television programming cause violence or do violence oriented children prefer to watch violent programs? Perhaps an entirely different reason creates violence not related to television at all. Stephen Jay Gould called the invalid assumption that correlation implies cause as "probably among the two or three most serious and common errors of human reasoning" (The Mismeasure of Man).

    excluded middle (or false dichotomy): considering only the extremes. Many people use Aristotelian either/or logic tending to describe in terms of up/down, black/white, true/false, love/hate, etc. (e.g., You either like it or you don't. He either stands guilty or not guilty.) Many times, a continuum occurs between the extremes that people fail to see. The universe also contains many "maybes."

    half truths (suppressed evidence): A statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

    loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)

    meaningless question: (e.g., "How high is up?" "Is everything possible?") "Up" describes a direction, not a measurable entity. If everything proved possible, then the possibility exists for the impossible, a contradiction. Although everything may not prove possible, there may occur an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. Many meaningless questions include empty words such as "is," "are," "were," "was," "am," "be," or "been."

    misunderstanding the nature of statistics: (e.g., the majority of people in the United States die in hospitals, therefore, stay out of them.) "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

    non sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence. (e.g., there occured an increase of births during the full moon. Conclusion: full moons cause birth rates to rise.) But does a full moon actually cause more births, or did it occur for other reasons, perhaps from expected statistical variations?

    no true Christian (no true Scotsman): an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with an example, rather than denying it, this fallacy excludes the specific case without reference to any objective rule. Example: Many Christians in history have started wars. Reply: Well no true Christian would ever start a war.

    observational selection (similar to confirmation bias): pointing out favorable circumstances while ignoring the unfavorable. Anyone who goes to Las Vegas gambling casinos will see people winning at the tables and slots. The casino managers make sure to install bells and whistles to announce the victors, while the losers never get mentioned. This may lead one to conclude that the chances of winning appear good while in actually just the reverse holds true.

    post hoc, ergo propter hoc: Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by." Similar to a non sequitur, but time dependent. (e.g. She got sick after she visited China, so something in China caused her sickness.) Perhaps her sickness derived from something entirely independent from China.

    proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

    red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

    reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity. Examples: IQ tests as an actual measure of intelligence; the concept of race (even though genetic attributes exist), from the chosen combination of attributes or the labeling of a group of people, come from abstract social constructs; Astrology; god(s); Jesus; Santa Claus, black race, white race, etc.

    slippery slope: a change in procedure, law, or action, will result in adverse consequences. (e.g., If we allow doctor assisted suicide, then eventually the government will control how we die.) It does not necessarily follow that just because we make changes that a slippery slope will occur.

    special pleading: the assertion of new or special matter to offset the opposing party's allegations. A presentation of an argument that emphasizes only a favorable or single aspect of the question at issue. (e.g. How can God create so much suffering in the world? Answer: You have to understand that God moves in mysterious ways and we have no privilege to this knowledge. Or: Horoscopes work, but you have to understand the theory behind it.)

    statistics of small numbers: similar to observational selection (e.g., My parents smoked all their lives and they never got cancer. Or: I don't care what others say about Yugos, my Yugo has never had a problem.) Simply because someone can point to a few favorable numbers says nothing about the overall chances.

    straw man: creating a false or made up scenario and then attacking it. (e.g., Evolutionists think that everything came about by random chance.) Most evolutionists think in terms of natural selection which may involve incidental elements, but does not depend entirely on random chance. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument. (From the email that I get on NoBeliefs.com this appears as the most common fallacy of all.)

    two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same. (e.g. how can you judge my actions when you do exactly the same thing?) The guilt of the accuser has no relevance to the discussion.

    Use-mention error: confusing a word or a concept with something that supposedly exists. For example an essay on THE HISTORY OF GOD does not refer to an actual god, but rather the history of the concept of god in human culture.
     
  5. HAPInoose

    HAPInoose Patron

    Great post... the Hubbard Tech of Black PR is based on varying forms of logical fallacy... I take it this is what your getting at?!!! :yes:
     
  6. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

    I have stated for decades (since 1997) that fallacious argument, or Logical Fallacies were ONE of the main ways Hubbard turned us into scientologists to begin with...I went from there to researching the history of hypnosis and magic and especially covert hypnotic techniques or military hypnosis, to the techniques of scientology,

    It is all connected, all as tools of deception. Steve Hassan encountered them from me, during a deprogramming session,- where they helped, he said (in 2005) that he was going to include a chapter on their use in his new book, which I have yet to read.

    Arnie
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2012
  7. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

    Re: How Disinfo Works

    Disinformation - How It Works

    A tidbit from Brandon Smith at Alt Market via Zerohedge -

    "The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs.

    The truth is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society who have lost respect for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process.

    The human psyche breathes on the air of truth. Without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance.

    Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt: all things that lead to destruction. It can drive good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to diffuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed."

    Long article worth digesting and using is HERE
     
  8. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

    LINK
     
  9. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Hubbard could've written this!
     
  10. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned


    or perhaps, copied it...

    compare the first half of William Sargant's "Battle for the mind" note the way the book is formatted, note so many of the topic and subheads are all in there...in "Dianetics"..William Sargant, the head of (Military) Psychiatry in the UK...who visited the US in after WWII ended., specifically US Navy Hospitals...passing around copies of his manuscript....which was published in 55, but the first half of Sargant's book is reworded and turned upside down, in Dianetics MSMH...Hubbard got a copy.. He liked visiting Hospital Libraries....after putting on a white coat, and acting like he was a Doctor. to walk in.

    I bet he got brown envelopes in the mail, but from whom?
     
  11. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

  12. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    Interesting.

    This got me thinking of something I pondered a little earlier tonite.

    It occurred to me that I had been working out a psychological unresolved theme when I got involved with Scientology. :unsure:

    I noted that some of L. Ron Hubbard's themes or activities in the beginning were The Golden Dawn magical system, Xenu, and Religion with a Buddhist goal.

    I spy a secret similarity. :happydance: The secret knowledge that there really is 'no' space unless you choose a position. One need not be pinned to a differentiation /vector at all. ( albeit that leads to degredation and lack of vibrancy). So the politician are secretly 'locating' you on the game board.The Babylonian and Egyptian magicians got invisibly BEHIND their gods, embracing the idea or value represented in full. Maybe they were using some 'universal astral plasma' and just manipulating a the field...where the taking of sides was a cosmic joke.

    In the Xenu story, it is similar IMHO. The person is wiped out or hypnotized and then insidiously POLARIZED into pre-established viewpoints kept chronic by the 'constant' they are made to fight. The ubiquitous blueprint is made by an executive decision about any and all possible futures.

    With the Buddhist theme one comes to the realization that his chronic 'character/stance (s)' on the stage has been manipulated by what he, on his own steam, has been holding up to be his opposition. :) It is noted here that the a valuable final product :wink2: is an awareness that one isn't truly occupying any vector at all.
     
  13. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

    Counter Counter Intelligence actions on Discussion Forums

    good article about counter intelligence operations used against discussion boards

    LINK to Zerohedge

    Ill summarize each point, as some of these have been mentioned on ESMB, for the tl:dr links crowd

    1) Forum Sliding

    Using prepositioned nicks to "slide" the most damaging topics off the list of new postings, often witj one or two line postings.


    2) Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'

    Real interesting one on blunting any new insights - "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." this reads better is 'posting' is substituted for the last word 'thread' in original..

    3) 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."

    Better to have them all talking about matters of no consequence than, say, perhaps a well funded RICO Lawsuit against NARCONON...

    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 "

    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. "

    there is more...

    and ends with: CONCLUSION

    "Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM"


    Read the whole article: LINK
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2012
  14. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

    "4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

    Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions."

    Disinformation: How it Works LINK
     
  15. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

  16. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

    Re: Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

    Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

    for activists to be more effective - read this once a week...until you think with it. From the DCDave website -

    Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government 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.

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

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

    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.")

    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.

    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.

    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).

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

    Dismiss the charges as "old news."

    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.

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

    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.

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

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

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

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  17. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

  18. Anonycat

    Anonycat Crusader

  19. Lermanet_com

    Lermanet_com Banned

    The Paternal Induction Technique


    This technique tends to use raw repetition, it is fast and rarely perceived by those experiencing it. It is based on the love a child feels for its mother...it is also incredibly EVIL:

    A FAST hypnosis technique
    this seems so familiar,
    anyone who recalls something like this, please pm me..

    Encyclopedia of Hypnotism by Carla Emery wrote:

    The paternal induction style is abrupt, shocking, dictatorial, highly
    authoritarian in tone, a domineering technique based on fear. A
    paternal-style induction uses a fast, directive induction method with
    a cold, unfriendly tone of voice.
    Ferenczi said that paternal hypnosis
    reawakens the hating and fearing attitude learned by a little child
    when disciplined by his parents. He said that, in paternal hypnosis,
    the subject is motivated by need for "abasement" and for "compliance."
    According to psychoanalysts, that need for abasement is an infantile,
    erotic, masochistic complex.

    Such a subject is in awe of the hypnotist, and submits to the
    operator's demands out of fear of him.
    ...the hypnotist with the imposing exterior, who works by frightening
    and startling...[is like] the stern, all-powerful father, to believe
    in, to obey, to imitate whom, is the highest ambition of every
    child..

    [hypnosis] consists in the deliberate establishment of conditions
    under which the tendency to blind belief and uncritical obedience
    present in everyone, but usually kept repressed by the censor (remains
    of the infantile-erotic loving and fearing of the parents), may
    unconsciously be transferred to the person hypnotizing... (Ferenczi,
    Sex in Psychoanalysis,Ch. 2)
    [...]

    Hypnosis always arouses a childlike state of mind: dependence and
    transference. Transference means relating to the hypnotist as if to a
    parent figure, hero, or godlike spiritual leader.

    ...the hypnotic subject is being directed to assume a state of mind in
    which mature discriminations are excluded and childish dependence upon
    the hypnotist is encouraged.

    As some people are pleased to be in a state where life seems narrowed
    down to an easily manageable level of closeness with a powerful
    guiding parent,
    hypnosis is in no danger of extinction... (Kovel, p.
    209)

    In the midst of World War II, Margaret Estabrooks reported, in a
    Seattle newspaper, on research which created
    an artificial childhood: ...hypnosis is a peculiar relationship
    between two people. The hypnotist is a figure of parental authority,
    just as a doctor is to a patient, or a teacher to his pupil. Even more
    strikingly than in these other relationships, the subject tends to
    respond emotionally to the hypnotist in the same manner that he
    responded to his own parents in his childhood. In particular,
    "parental" commands in the form of suggestions are readily obeyed...

    (Margaret Estabrook, 1942, p. 1)
    [...]
    A hypnotist's use of authority can vary wildly. He can create the
    state, then let the subject take full control; training in biofeedback
    does that. At the other extreme, the hypnotist uses a totally
    authoritarian strategy in which the subject never is expected to have
    self-control in the hypnotic state again. Suggested total amnesia for
    all events under trance may cause the subject to be consciously
    unknowing of their hypnotic relationship. Complete amnesia is not
    typical, however, even of deep trance events. Hypnosis, at best, is a
    special way of encouraging a subject's unconscious mind to activate
    its own capacity for healing. At worst, it can be the tool of an
    abusive parasitizing of one mind by another for the purpose of
    exploitation.


    --------------------

    This is how the trick was done..
     

Share This Page