Shills !We don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize them!!
Quote:
Below is series of statements taken from H. Michael Sweeney's 'Disinformation Playbook'. I have taken what I feel to be the most relevant assertions and observations, and embedded my own comments and observations to profile the common disinformant; as the full unabridged essay is very long and is not wholly relevant to this forum.
According to the above, some of the most recognizable traits of a Disinformant or 'Cointel Operative' are:
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.
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. Side attacks are relatively common though too, where the disinformant will select commentators to attack on a peripheral basis, to help camouflage their strike on a single target.
Coincidental: They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally, perhaps with a new controversial topic, and with no prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular forum involved. They simply appear, and start their activities without delay or interest in the temperament of those around them, or the nature of other discussions.
Anti-Conspiratorial: They often assert a disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who believe legitimate and proven conspiracies, whilst at the same time they often defend outlandish and unverified conspiracies. This is designed to confuse the issue by diverting attention away from real intelligence, and toward counterintelligence, which is no threat to the adversary. If they are not defending or promoting any particular topic, then the chances are they are simply attempting to foster doubt about all material and discussions, although this is far less likely as it nurtures suspicion about their identity.
Artificial Emotion: 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. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later - an emotional yo-yo, which betrays their total lack of sincerity in the topic or discussion. For them, it is likely just a job, and so they do it without emotional attachment, although this may not always be the case.
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 or discovery deep within. They can make claims of authority on a certain topic, but once they've been shown to be wrong or fraudulent; casually change their position to suit the prevailing consensus. When observed, these traits are highly indicative of a disinformant, as the disinformant is only working toward short term goals of disruption, and is not concerned with integrity or a clean track record.
Some of the key techniques and tactics used by these people; to defame sources of information or opinion, to disrupt the exchange of information, and to contaminate the information itself, are as follows:
Imply Myth or Rumor: Avoid discussing details by describing all assertions, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. If the assertion can in any way be associated with known myth or rumor, use this to your advantage and appeal to popular cynicism by stating that it is 'obviously' such a myth or rumor.
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 look bad. Either make up an issue that you can imply exists, based on your 'interpretation' of their assertions, and use that to discredit their case, or take the weakest and most insignificant aspect of their argument, amplify its significance into a pivotal issue, and debate them on that. This of course, distracts from core issues, and gives you a better chance of an 'easy win'.
Distract Introduce a new topic altogether, and encourage commentators or observers to focus on this information instead. This can be accurate, partially inaccurate, or wholly inaccurate information, but which is non-threatening to your cause and which is likely to gain more attention through sensation, controversy or curiosity. Mixing a little bit of fact with a lot of fiction is often the most effective method, as this lures people in yet leaves them without any solid intelligence to use. This means spending more time on a non-issue, which is good for avoiding real issues, and may even illicit some long term believers.
Ad-Hominem: 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 deviants', 'drunks', 'drug addicts' and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. This can also assist in provoking an emotional response in your opponent, thus putting them on the defensive, where they are more likely to try and prove your personal attacks inaccurate.
Hit & 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 well in making an accusation without having to dignify the response, and avoids getting caught in a direct confrontation over a single issue, which can be risky.
Question Motives: Much like the Ad-Hominem ploy; Twist, amplify or invent any fact which could be taken to suggest that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing real issues and forces the opponent on the defensive, so more time is spent countering these allegations than dealing with the core information.
Invoke Authority: Claim yourself to be, or associate yourself with an authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows'. By simply repeating these assertions with confidence and making frequent references to jargon, you can maintain the veneer of authority without having to deal in specifics for any length of time.
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, and simply repeat over and over so that you appear to hold the stronger position.
Enigma: Drawing upon the multitude of facts and information surrounding the assertion, claim that they are too complex and too complicated to ever come to any reasonable conclusion on. This works best when your position is weakening and it is time to move on: offer the 'truce' of an unsolvable mystery; making you appear more objective, whilst your opponent appears more subjective for trying to push the issue.
Backward Logic: Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual fact. For example: Create a faulty premise which you know will appeal to a popular misconception, and use that 'logic' as the grounds to discredit your opponent's argument to the contrary.
Demand Complete Solutions: Demand a comprehensive and complete explanation of your opponent's premise, and use any unanswered questions or uncertainties as the basis for dismissing the entire argument altogether. This works well in swaying the opinion of others, because you are demonstrating that your opponent does not have all the answers. Thus, their argument is incomplete, and is therefore faulty 'by any reasonable standards'.
Change the Subject: Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here such as 'distract'; find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of swaying attention to a new, more manageable line of discussion, where you can take hold of the narrative.
Antagonize & Provoke: If you can't do anything else, insult 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' or how 'you've damaged their ego'.
Project: Take all of the tactics you have used to discredit and attack your opponent, and turn it all around by accusing them of using the very same techniques. This creates confusion for the casual observer or commentator, allowing you to go on the offensive, where your opponent is suddenly put on the defensive again, and the argument is reduced to a series of heated yet basic assertions.
And much more at Camelot Forum
http://camelotforum.net/index.php?op...762&Itemid=164
You need to be a member of Peacepink3 to add comments!
Replies
[QUOTE]
Listen Lebwoski dont project any psychological behaviour on other ppl who are here. The text that you copy pastet is all from the book of schopenhauer "die Kunst rechtn zu behaslten"! you dont know what you speak of and just copy paste all information from other websites where they summarize the sayings in the book i was talking about. dont spread misinformation as it is your own speech and combine it with ideas of shills: i tell you a thing which you are not able to think about cause your logic lacks.. they dont need any stupid ideas or mechanism of shrills theyx just attack tem with weapons which you never read about.. do you know what we speak of and just to listen your own made up constructed ideas.. all who read daily about how this stuff works dounderstand how iut infiltrates socially and technically into the mind and structure of the world.sometimes i am asking myself if you really believe you are the smartes guy on this planet. just put in such texts into the forum and project it on ppl you dislike.. you just want attack ppl out here who all 99 percent of them claim to be victims of psychotronic weapons. u watched too much cia in la or detectives by agatha christie. that just makes me angry when ppl spray disinformation which has nothing to do with mind control. the next thing is you always accuse ppl like with a delirium of reference. we didnt attack you nor did we wanted to torture you nor do i want listen always to this attacks everywhere from your side. get adult and stop always attack ppl in peacepink. you spread around hatred and label ppl to be perps.
[/QUOTE]
Fuck off you little perp prick. For readers' benefit, Sanjuro is a perp that's been gangstalking me on here for a year or so, mainly in the main room chat room. This culminated in an overt threat just before Christmas 2014 in which Sanjuro "predicted" I would have an "embolism" and gave me either two or four weeks and said I had "suffered enough". This "coincidentally" came just after a period in which I was investigating strange deaths on the internet related to key events; I had come across the account of a woman that "coincidentally" had not one but two embolisms simultaneously (this is unheard of) rather conveniently for the (perp) authorities. Being a perp, little bullshitting Sanjuro, would have been party to what I was looking at on the internet and used this information to try and scare me.
A warning to new users on here: You will be Gangstalked to the hilt on the chat room on here. Be advised.
Incidentally, I have had to repost this message after it was edited to introduce typos after I published it. I check all my posts carefully several times during the editing period. It is after this period that these typos are "mysteriously" introduced, so the perps have full administrative access to this forum. This has happened many times on here not only to me but to others. A particular target for these typos is the word "gangstalking" which the perps - and shills on here - seem very uncomfortable with. I wonder why.
Exactly this.
It's funny, but very serious business. Until you are undivided and in union.
It's funny (to us because they're pathetic for even trying their odds), but very serious business.
AND...
To them, It's funny (because they want to terrify us) & human souls are very serious business, (on both sides) $$$ for them, and sanctity for us.
here's another one...
'In Jesus name we pray'
(jesus/iesu/isis/rah/el/Israel/el the bull-god (lower mind)ISIS (nurturer)Rah (light of truth)/enlightenment/ krishna consciousness/christ consciousness/buddha-hood/sat-chit-ananda/father,son,holy spirit, etc. Etc. Etc.
THERE ARE DOUBLE MEANINGS...what they mean though when they do double-speak is
'In Jesus name, we prey on you'
In the name of your enlightenment, you get preyed upon. When you know...
So...this means you can choose the creator eternal, beyond time and magnificent that doesn't lie. They try to squeeze us between 2 psychological walls, so we walk the middle path, the tightrope act. The balance-beam. The cross. For them, they wish to cross us over then. Some are afraid, but the fear is a stumbling block.
You didn't answer why you said it was just lobotomy scars from the beginning, but Your Fireside chat says clearly that you introduced it as lobotomy.
I honestly think you would do yourself a favor if you quit putting others down and concentrate on being more positive. For every negative word you spew it takes us using five positive words to make up for it!!
The continued mention of dogs eating people is just a desperate attempt to get believers by repetition. It Very obvious.
Try growth..... Seriously. Don't make fun of the idea. If you don't learn to grow, at best you stagnate. At worst you self destruct.
LaBrat said:
"YES, AND WE ALL 'MISTOOK' YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT KIDS FOR DOGFOOD AS A 'THREAT'"
Which is the later part of this:
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, and simply repeat over and over so that you appear to hold the stronger position.
LaBrat said:
"He did something similar with Sanjuro. COPY PASTE "
then said this:
"AS LONG AS YOU STICK TO COPY/PASTED QUOTES, YOU'RE DOING OK"
Can you adress the Misinformation you spread about Tesla creating the Neurophone, and hearing aliens through it????? Links please! !!
"I DID TELL YOU IT IS IN HIS AUTBIOGRAPHY HOW CAN YOU HONESTLY CALL TESLA'S WORDS "MISINFORMATION" BEFORE YOU'VE EVEN READ THEM?"
---He re i ask for a link. LaBrat refuses to provide a link, but then says I didnt read it.Well if he provides a link to prove his statement, then we might believe him. Which is this:
Backward Logic: Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual fact. For example: Create a faulty premise which you know will appeal to a popular misconception, and use that 'logic' as the grounds to discredit your opponent's argument to the contrary.
--The fact tgat LaBrat spewed all of what he did, Without even saying the word lobotomy, much less adressing the kies he told about having one, is this:
Change the Subject: Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here such as 'distract'; find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of swaying attention to a new, more manageable line of discussion, where you can take hold of the narrative.
---- Overall, i cant thank Lebowski enough for posting this kist of Troll tactics......
LaBrat said:
"
'had' you been an actual troll, you're superiours 'would' be saying "mission accomplished"
"growth"? cancer 'grows', dotty fungus grows rust grows in the dark that's just 'ruff'
"
Nice!!! Now you're psychological projecting how it is tgat You 'grow' LaBrat! !!! LMFAO!!!
(Edited)
By not responding to the obvious lobotomy bull, you are doing this;
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, and simply repeat over and over so that you appear to hold the stronger position.
And this:
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.
--And by refering to suture scars, i admitted that wasnt the word you used, but you said the scar on your temple shows the points really lightly where the stitches were.., yet later you said it was all coverd by hair.
Peacepink members arent 'moroons' LaBrat. They see you for what you are.
By not responding to the obvious lobotomy bull, you are doing this;
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, and simply repeat over and over so that you appear to hold the stronger position.
And this:
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.
--And by refering to surure scars, i admitted tbat wasnt tge word you used, but you said the scar on your temple showx the points really kightly where the stitches were.., yet later you said it was all coverdd by hair.
Peacepink members arent 'moroons' LaBrat. They see you for what you are.
Taken from my profile page:
My Friends (105)
LaBrat said:
LaBrat said;
" peacenik (whom you called a "fucking retard" upon first meeting her during her last 'chat' here)"
That is a blatant lie! I have never called peacenik a 'fucking retard'! She and i had been getting along well. As attested by the fact that she joined my arts group, and the posts on her profile page.
LaBrat said;
"Christine (who got so grossed out by the aggressive negativity you deployed to shut down the 'channel ducking...' blog - discussing the verboten 'real g-s' heresy - that she had to block you from it"
Another blatant lie. Christine never blocked me from anything ever! AND we have been getting along very well.
As for Carrin, we're getting along well, too.
When are you going to post something positive? You cant canabolize yourself forever.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next