Google and You Tube Censorship Exposed: Terrorists Get Free Pass While Alternative Media is Demonetized / Buried by Algorithmic Search Engine

This post features three primary parts. Firstly, in this post I will lay out the new Google censorship guidelines utilizing the Ars Technica article that introduced the guidelines to the public in early summer 2017. Secondly, I will provide videos from a number of western political channels where the channel personality explains how censorship and demonetization is affecting their viewcounts, income and ability to be seen and heard expressing their political viewpoints. Thirdly, at the conclusion of this post I will demonstrate that terrorist channels and real pro-Nazi You Tube channels around the world are being given a completely free pass  to expose their propaganda by You Tube (Google) as of August 4th, 2017 (date of this post).

______________________________________

Linked directly below is the article that explains the new Google censorship guidelines. (Note that they state they are going after “extremist and hate-filled content”.)

Are Technica – Google now actively works against extremist YouTube videos New policies make it harder for terroristic content to flourish (and be found) on YouTube. VALENTINA PALLADINO – 6/19/2017

Excerpt:

Google knows there’s a lot of extremist and hate-filled content on YouTube, and the company is now doing more to stop those videos from gaining traction. In a blog post yesterday, Google laid out four new steps it will take to work against extremist videos on YouTube, and most of those steps expand on current systems the company has in place to identify, flag, demonetize, and essentially hide hate-filled videos.

The most nebulous of the four measures is the third listed in the blog post, which states that Google and YouTube will take a “tougher stance” on videos that don’t clearly violate YouTube’s policies. The blog post describes these videos as containing “inflammatory religious or supremacist content”; those videos may not fall under YouTube’s definition of hate speech, but they’ll now be targeted in a similar way.

YouTube clarifies “hate speech” definition and which videos won’t be monetized
“In the future these will appear behind an interstitial warning and they will not be monetized, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements,” Kent Walker, general counsel for Google, wrote in the blog post. “That means these videos will have less engagement and be harder to find. We think this strikes the right balance between free expression and access to information without promoting extremely offensive viewpoints.”

The link directly below is to the official Google Blog post on the censorship guidelines mentioned in the Ars Technica article above:

Google – Four steps we’re taking today to fight terrorism online – June 18, 2017

__________________________________________________

Featured below are a number of channels of various political stylings that Google has begun censoring and demonetizing under the new censorship guidelines. Each channel personality explains in each video how the Google censorship guidelines are personally affecting them and how the censorship will effect the public as a whole. Between each video will be additional portions of the Ars Technica article that reveal the new censorship guidelines in their entirety. At the conclusion of this post I will provide links and screenshots from actual terrorist and pro-Nazi channels as proof that only western political commentary that exposes war crimes, propaganda and the Deep State agenda is actually being censored by Google, while real terrorists and real murderous Nazi groups are clearly being given a free pass by Google as of August 4, 2017. 

Caveat: My use of these channels to make a point does not necessarily mean I endorse  their viewpoints. I am simply against censorship in any form. People who read Clarity of Signal regularly likely realize that I lean progressive ideologically, however, I am not attached to any particular political party and instead now simply focus on exposing warcrimes, false flags and corruption amongst the government and global elite. I have had a good many people from all political affiliations help me attain info for posts at the site. Each one of these videos provides a good synopsis of what is going on regarding You Tube/Google censorship.

Support the WSWS’s fight against Google censorship.

Censored political discussion channel 1-StyxHexHammer

Censored political discussion channel 2 – Lionel Nation

Ars Technica excerpt 2-

How are Google and YouTube taking this tougher stance against gray-area videos? The other measures outlined in the blog post explain further. Google will increase the amount of technology used to identify extremist videos, meaning the company will expand the sophistication of its machine learning technology that can tell the difference between extremist content and non-extremist content.

FURTHER READING
Big US companies pull YouTube ads after extremist content sparks uncertainty
This is particularly important for any YouTube channel that discusses news and current events, because until now, those channels have been heavily demonetized because they talk about sensitive, violent, and extremist events while reporting the news. The blog post states that the company will now use “advanced machine learning research to train new ‘content classifiers’ to help us more quickly identify and remove extremist and terrorism-related content.”

Google will also increase YouTube Trusted Flagger networking, which is a group of companies and individuals that have the power to flag videos with offensive content. Google will add 50 expert NGOs to the existing 63 organizations in the program and support them with additional grants. Lumped into the Trusted Flagger program is the YouTube Heroes program, which initially raised the eyebrows of many creators as it let any YouTube user apply to be someone who flags offensive content on the platform. Some creators have expressed concern that user biases could cause some of their videos to be unnecessarily flagged or demonetized. However, creators can initiate a review process for any demonetized video if they think it doesn’t contain offensive material or content that violates YouTube policies.

Censored political discussion channel 3 – Paul Joseph Watson 

Censored political discussion channel 4 – Mark Dice  –

Ars Technica article excerpt 3 –

The final measure from Google is an expansion of its counter-radicalization efforts on YouTube. This is arguably the most active and purposeful new step out of the four, as it expands on the “redirect method” originally developed by Google Ideas, a think tank now known as Jigsaw. Born last year, the “redirect method” essentially uses targeted advertising to guide potential ISIS recruits away from radicalization videos. Ads are placed next to search results for keywords and phrases that have been deemed ISIS-related, and when clicked, those ads bring the user to YouTube channels consisting of videos debunking ISIS teachings. The theory is that potential ISIS recruits will be dissuaded from learning about or joining the terrorist organization after watching those videos.

The “redirect method” is a new initiative that’s barely one year old, but Google believes it has had a positive effect. While Google can’t quantify how many potential ISIS recruits have abandoned their terrorism-related research, the company does claim “potential recruits have clicked through on the ads at an unusually high rate, and watched over half a million minutes of video content.”

Internet companies are under immense pressure to do something about hate speech on their platforms. Facebook is taking a similar approach to Google, pledging to use AI and more human moderators to eliminate extremist content on its website, while Twitter unabashedly suspends accounts that promote terrorism. Google’s new measures are undoubtedly another response to the ad exodus that occurred earlier this year, in which many companies pulled advertising from YouTube after ads were found running over hate-filled videos. Until now, YouTube has focused on giving advertisers more tools to control where their ads appear and more clearly defining what “extremist” and “offensive” content means for their creators. But there is no longer any ambiguity on what Google and YouTube will be doing going forward—they will not only come down hard on offensive content, but they will also do more to ensure extremist content can’t be easily found on YouTube.

Censored political discussion channel 5 – David Seaman – 

 

Internationally renowned investigative reporter Robert Parry of Consortium News and Iran-Contra fame covers “The Dawn of an Orwellian Future”, and specifically, the Google censorship of the World Socialist Website shown in the video up above.

Consortium News – The Dawn of an Orwellian Future July 28, 2017

Excerpt:

A report by the World Socialist Web Site found that “in the three months since Internet monopoly Google announced plans to keep users from accessing ‘fake news,’ the global traffic rankings of a broad range of left-wing, progressive, anti-war and democratic rights organizations have fallen significantly.” Google’s strategy is to downgrade search results for targeted Web sites based on a supposed desire to limit reader access to “low-quality” information, but the targets reportedly include some of the highest-quality alternative news sites on the Internet, such as – according to the report – Consortiumnews.com.

Google sponsors the First Draft Coalition, which was created to counter alleged “fake news” and consists of mainstream news outlets, including the Times and The Washington Post, as well as establishment-approved Web sites, such as Bellingcat, which has a close association with the anti-Russia and pro-NATO Atlantic Council. This creation of a modern-day Ministry of Truth occurred under the cover of a mainstream-driven hysteria about “fake news” and “Russian propaganda” in the wake of Donald Trump’s election.

Last Thanksgiving Day, the Post ran a front-page article citing accusations from an anonymous Web site, PropOrNot, that identified 200 Web sites — including such Internet stalwarts as Truthdig, Counterpunch and Consortiumnews — as purveyors of “Russian propaganda.” Apparently, PropOrNot’s standard was to smear any news outlet that questioned the State Department’s Official Narrative on the Ukraine crisis or some other global hot spot, but the Post didn’t offer any actual specifics of what these Web sites had done to earn their place on a McCarthyistic blacklist.

An Orwellian Future

In early May 2017, the Times chimed in with a laudatory article about how sophisticated algorithms could purge the Internet of alleged “fake news” or what the mainstream media deems to be “misinformation.” Big Brother poster illustrating George Orwell’s novel about modern propaganda, 1984. As I wrote at the time, “you don’t need a huge amount of imagination to see how this combination of mainstream groupthink and artificial intelligence could create an Orwellian future in which only one side of a story gets told and the other side simply disappears from view.”

End Excerpt – (More at link above)

Link to World Socialist Website Report –

New Google algorithm restricts access to left-wing, progressive web sites By Andre Damon and Niles Niemuth 27 July 2017

1st excerpt:

In the three months since Internet monopoly Google announced plans to keep users from accessing “fake news,” the global traffic rankings of a broad range of left-wing, progressive, anti-war and democratic rights organizations have fallen significantly. On April 25, 2017, Google announced that it had implemented changes to its search service to make it harder for users to access what it called “low-quality” information such as “conspiracy theories” and “fake news.” The company said in a blog post that the central purpose of the change to its search algorithm was to give the search giant greater control in identifying content deemed objectionable by its guidelines. Google declared that it had “improved our evaluation methods and made algorithmic updates” in order “to surface more authoritative content.”

Google continued, “Last month, we updated our Search Quality Rater Guidelines to provide more detailed examples of low-quality webpages for raters to appropriately flag.” These moderators are instructed to flag “upsetting user experiences,including pages that present “conspiracy theories,” unless “the query clearly indicates the user is seeking an alternative viewpoint.” The World Socialist Web Site has been targeted by Google’s new “evaluation methods.” While in April 2017, 422,460 visits to the WSWS originated from Google searches, the figure has dropped to an estimated 120,000 this month, a fall of more than 70 percent. Even when using search terms such as “socialist” and “socialism,” readers have informed us that they find it increasingly difficult to locate the World Socialist Web Site in Google searches.

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 5.05.07 PM

According to Google’s webmaster tools service, the number of searches resulting in users seeing content from the World Socialist Web Site (that is, a WSWS article appeared in a Google search) fell from 467,890 a day to 138,275 over the past three months. The average position of articles in searches, meanwhile, fell from 15.9 to 37.2 over the same period. David North, chairperson of the International Editorial Board of the WSWS, stated that Google is engaged in political censorship. “The World Socialist Web Site has been in existence for nearly 20 years,” he said, “and it has developed a large international audience. During this past spring, the number of individual visits to the WSWS each month exceeded 900,000. “While a significant percentage of our readers enter the WSWS directly, many web users access the site through search engines, of which Google is the most widely used. There is no innocent explanation for the extraordinarily sharp fall in readers, virtually overnight, coming from Google searches.

“Google’s claim that it is protecting readers from ‘fake news’ is a politically motivated lie. Google, a massive monopoly, with the closest ties to the state and intelligence agencies, is blocking access to the WSWS and other left and progressive web sites through a system of rigged searches.” In the three months since Google implemented the changes to its search engine, fewer people have accessed left-wing and anti-war news sites. Based on information available on Alexa analytics, other sites that have experienced sharp drops in ranking include WikiLeaks, Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News and Truthout. Even prominent democratic rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International appear to have been hit. 

More at link above…..

Graphic from above WSWS article showing declining traffic rates for site that expose warcrimes, global corruption and Deep State activities.

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 5.14.26 PM

Now that we’ve taken a look at what Google is censoring, demonetizing and driving down in the algorithms of its search engine, let’s look at what is not currently being censored by Google.

As many Clarity of Signal readers are likely aware, this site has been one of the leading sites exposing terrorists in Syria and Libya, as well as Nazis in Ukraine. During the past 3 years I have compiled a massive amount of photo and video evidence in a number of posts clearly showing the murderous organizations that conduct terrorism while receiving funding from western governments and help from corrupt media outlets. This site clearly exposes the White Helmets terrorist ruse that western governments and media have foisted on the citizenry that they are supposed to be representing and working for. My work exposing the murderous, fascist Nazi battalions in Ukraine is extensive and includes dozens of their own videos from their own Azov You Tube channel.

Those Ukrainian Nazis are still freely posting videos up on You Tube as of August 4th, 2017, and have been given a free pass by Google, even though Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have implicated them in war crimes against innocent civilians. This is the Azov battalions You Tube channel main page…… they are real Nazis:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCewl92lzIMDO8QiAYOQ2d8w/videos

Screen shot from August 4th, 2017

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 5.24.44 PM

Link to Amnesty International and HRW reports on the warcrimes of the Aidar and Azov battalions:

Item 1: EU-Ukraine: Backtracking on Human Rights Despite Closer European Ties, Kyiv Not Meeting Commitments (July 11, 2017)

Item 2: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2016

Excerpt from Item 2 –

58. OHCHR documented allegations of unidentified armed men detaining people living near the conflict zone due to their alleged affiliation with armed groups. They complained about being subjected to ill-treatment and torture in order to extract confessions that they assisted armed groups. Following their confessions, they were taken to SBU premises and officially charged. OHCHR has consistently observed that the SBU fails to inquire into the condition of detainees and the circumstances of their capture. This pattern of conduct suggests that SBU investigators may either be involved in certain cases of arbitrary detention, or fail to act to prosecute perpetrators.

59. A resident of Mariupol was detained by three servicemen of the ‘Azov’ battalion on 28 January 2015 for supporting the ‘Donetsk people’s republic’. He was taken to the basement of Athletic School No. 61 in Mariupol, where he was held until 6 February 2015. He was continuously interrogated and tortured. He complained about being handcuffed to a metal rod and left hanging on it, he was reportedly tortured with electricity, gas mask and subjected to waterboarding and he was also beaten in his genitals. As a result he confessed about sharing information with the armed groups about the locations of the Government checkpoints. Only on 7 February, he was taken to the Mariupol SBU, where he was officially detained.

60. Allegations of torture and ill-treatment are rarely investigated. There are few prospects for accountability for abuses perpetrated by members of law enforcement agencies. In some cases, attempts by victims of torture to complain to judges in the course of a hearing have been met with inaction and callousness, with judges frequently ignoring or dismissing complaints, revealing the judiciary’s lack of impartiality.

 

____________________________________________________

This is the You Tube channel of terrorist and al- Nusra Front information disseminator Bilal Abdul Kareem who promotes the leader of al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria) Abdullah al-Muhaysini. He works for On The Ground News (a pro-terrorist You Tube propaganda channel). In this video which is still up on his pro-terrorist OGN You Tube channel on August 4th, 2017, he showers praise upon Abdullah al-Muhaysini, the leader of al-Nusra Front. Keep in mind that it took less than 30 seconds for me to find this video, yet Googles ‘impressive’ new algorithms that weed out ‘extremist content’ have completely overlooked this material and given it a free pass. This is a terrorist that murders people by blowing them up with explosives, shooting them in the face at point blank range and cutting off human heads, yet he completely receives a free pass from Google and You Tube as of August 4th, 2017. A video channel that openly promotes terrorism and the leader of al-Qaeda in Syria is completely, glaringly unaffected by Googles new censorship guidelines which appear to affect only content that deals with exposing western support for terrorist groups.

In case the video above is removed after this CoS article is published, here are some screen shots from the video:

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 5.34.36 PM

Note that I left the search terms up there for people to see in the screenshot. Why did I add CNN to the search terms you may wonder? Well, its because CNN actually gave an award to this mouthpiece for terrorists. That fact is exposed in the Tapestry of Terror video I put together linked below. CNN and Amnesty International actually gave that terrorist mouthpiece an award for his pro terrorist propaganda.

Link here:  Tapestry of Terror (Highly Graphic) – White Helmets Exposed As FSA Terrorists Linked With ISIS

2nd screenshot:

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 5.38.37 PM

3rd:

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 5.39.57 PM

Link proving these terrorists propaganda networks/You Tube channels should have been shut down over 10 months ago. Thus, proving Googles new censorship agenda is not focused on stopping terrorism, and is instead, focused on stifling political dissent of concerned citizens and alternative media outlets who oppose US and EU (western) nefarious actions related to support for terrorists and fascist regimes, as well as dissent surrounding the controversy around the 2016 US election, blame Russia narrative and Wikileaks revelations.

Treasury Designates Key Al-Nusrah Front Leaders -Abdallah Muhammad Bin-Sulayman al-Muhaysini

Screenshot and link proving that CNN and Amnesty International actually gave a TV Trophy Award to the terrorist Bilal Abdul Kareem

TELEVISION TROPHY – INTERNATIONAL JURY AWARDED BY AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 5.53.28 PM

This third channel belongs to Hadi Abadallah whose You Tube channel allows him the opportunity to promote the White Helmets terrorists in Syria as well as numerous FSA terrorist groups, including the Nour al-Zinki child beheaders. Evidence proving such can be found among my other Clarity of Signal posts related to Syrian ruses conducted in collaboration with the US and EU governments and corrupt mainstream media outlets.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCo_dRDd4m7fgCNdfwLAPKMA/videos

Note that You Tube/Google could just as easily track down this terrorists propaganda channel and shut him and it down. I have personally been exposing that him as a terrorist who conducts false flags alongside the White Helmets, who are also terrorists, for the past year. Instead of shutting them down, Google has, as of August 4th, 2017,  decided to allow him a free pass, as has the US and western governments who support his nefarious and murderous cause.

In the below linked post I expose the terrorist Hadi Abadallah fully for all to see:

False Flagger: Al-Nusra Front Terrorist ‘Reporter’ Hadi Abdallah First Responder to Chemical Massacre in Idlib, Syria on April 4th, 2017

Lastly, these are the current accounts of Abdullah al-Muhaysini himself. He has multiple accounts. They are not censored or blocked by You Tube/Google. They are easy to access as of August 4th, 2017. Screen shots are included in case these accounts are removed after this CoS post goes live.

1st account established on May 12, 2017 :  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIQUPhL43Ln74oq3aDYzVHg

Screenshot: Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 6.09.25 PM

2nd account established on October 28th, 2016 :  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7aa3C_TOaOEkgiu0Rp3bVQ

Screenshot 1:

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 6.11.29 PM

Screenshot 2:

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 6.11.55 PM

Sample of basic search results under the name of the al-Qaeda leader in Syria proves he and his followers are not censored and are free to post as they like, with no censorship from Google/You Tube. These screenshots prove that the censorship being conducted by You Tube and Google is not being carried out for the purposes they specify in their new censorship guidelines due to the fact that well known terrorists, including the leader of al-Qaeda in Syria still have their channels up and fully operational.

Screen Shot 2017-08-04 at 6.17.55 PM

Additional You Tube political personalities discuss You Tube demonetization of their accounts in 2016 when You Tube first introduced the demonetization of political content that doesn’t match the selected corporate news criteria-

Jimmy Dore show –

TruthStream Media –

Sane Progressive explains what all this censorship and control is really all about…

Link to additional Clarity of Signal posts on Google, You Tube and Facebook censorship and demonetization:

Google Censors and Demonetizes High View Count Videos That Reveal The Truth About the Syrian War and the MSM’s ‘Fake News’ Agenda

Big Brother Watching: Huge Compendium of Screenshots Highlight Facebook and Other Forms of Censorship In New Age of Internet Surveillance and Control

To preview Google’s AI Web Filtering Algorithm and see for yourself which terms are deemed acceptable or toxic, I highly recommend the following link:

Dregs of the Future – Preview Google’s AI Web Filtering Algorithm–censorship

To see how Goole got its start as a Deep State tool, check out this link:

How the CIA made Google Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet—Pt 1

Why Google made the NSA Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet—Pt 2

Recommended reading:

YouTube Begins Purging Alternative Media as the Deep State Marches Toward WW3

Recommendations for concerned citizens tired of the censorship:

VidMe – https://vid.me

Steemit Video: https://steemit.com/steemq/@furion/steemq-a-decentralized-video-platform-for-steem

https://steemit.com/steemq/@furion/teaser-soon-you-will-be-able-to-publish-videos-on-steem

You can now publish videos to your own Steemit blog on Viewly

RU Tube – https://rutube.ru  (Caveat – site is not in English, but someone putting together a quick tutorial on how to post using Russian/English screenshots could make this a very valuable resource).

For a search engine with a better selection of search results and no tracking of your online activity  – https://duckduckgo.com/

Recognizing the Enemy of Truth: Cryptome’s Guide To Forum Spies – GCHQ and COINTELPRO Disruption Techniques

25 February 2014. Related: GCHQ Full-Spectrum Cyber Effects:

http://cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-cyber-effects.pdf

24 February 2014. Related: GCHQ Online Deception:

http://cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-online-deception.pdf

GCHQ DISRUPTION Operational Playbook:

http://cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-disruption.pdf

29 January 2014. Related: GCHQ Squeaky Dolphin Psychological Operations:

http://cryptome.org/2014/01/gchq-squeaky-dolphin.pdf (18MB)

4 March 2012. Precursor to this sabotage, OSS Sabotage of Organizations:

http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/Board/oss/oss_sabotage.html

12 July 2012

The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
______________________________________________________________________________________
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..

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 http://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.
______________________________________________________________________________________

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 their character 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.

______________________________________________________________________________________

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 complementary packs 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.

______________________________________________________________________________________

How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn’t get out.

2) A lot of time is wasted

3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged

4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent’s job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

“You’re dividing the movement.”

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of “dedication to the cause.” Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she – being truly dedicated to the movement – becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that “on purpose.” It’s amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: “they did that unconsciously… they didn’t really mean it… I can help them by being forgiving and accepting ” and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

“You’re a leader!”

This is designed to enhance the activist’s self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is “malignant pseudoidentification.” It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist’s identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist’s vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist’s general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist’s self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of “twinship”. It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist’s “felt quality of perfection” [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim’s own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is “mirroring” them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that “twinship alliances” between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally “lose touch with reality.”

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be “helpers” endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist’s narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent’s expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being “emotionally hooked,” will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that “the play has ended, the curtain has fallen,” and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn’t need leaders, it needs MOVERS. “Follow the leader” is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda

2) To side-track the discussion

3) To interrupt repeatedly

4) To feign ignorance

5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ….

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)

2) Print flyers in English only.

3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.

4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support

5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.

6) Confuse issues.

7) Make the wrong demands.

Cool Compromise the goal.

9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone’s time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist’s work.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish “leaders” to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.

2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.

3) Encourage militancy.

4) Want to taunt the authorities.

5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.

6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.

7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.

2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).

3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.

4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

______________________________________________________________________________________

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up “exposure,” they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.

If an agent is “exposed,” he or she will be transferred or replaced.

COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.

The FBI counterintelligence program’s stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. “National Security” means the FBI’s security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people’s civil liberties.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

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.

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.”)

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.

Guardian UK – Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media

Military’s ‘sock puppet’ software creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda

The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.

A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an “online persona management service” that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.

The project has been likened by web experts to China’s attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.

The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities – known to users of social media as “sock puppets” – could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.

The Centcom contract stipulates that each fake online persona must have a convincing background, history and supporting details, and that up to 50 US-based controllers should be able to operate false identities from their workstations “without fear of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries”.

Ntrepid Timestream product allows for “Across the board” propaganda rollout- cohesion of information to multiple affiliated media sources. (Note video highlights pro-Kiev (Ukraine) information agenda.

 

Cryptome link to all compiled documentation utilized in this post: https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm