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 Forumhttp://camelotforum.net/index.php?op...762&Itemid=164

You need to be a member of Peacepink3 to add comments!

Join Peacepink3

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies


  • To finish off where you convieniently cut off the definition; 

    .......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.

    LaBrat said:

    tesla says he did, in his autobiography ('my inventions'), an excellent, readable source of facts    read also his accounts of his secretary george scherf, nazi banking family immigrant and father of "curious george" (bush sr), who sneaked around his lab and ultimately ferried the whole kit and caboodle out of the public good's way (lil nicky gave the world free power), and over to hoover while the body was sill warm

    what makes this outrageous tale sound credible to me (besides tesla's very rational words, and the family photos leaked by hitler's chauffeur) is the fact the within one day of the release of the movie 'curious george', the creator was brutally tortured and murdered    that just has yale 'numb-Skulls and Bone-heads written all over it     

    if YOU want to try to paint ME "anti-conspiratorial", you're going to end up with a pretty messy smock and studio - and a virgin white canvass still standing in front of you when you finally run out of paint!  
     

    David forToday said:

    Since Tesla didnt create the neurophone, how do you support tgecrest of your statement herd:

    "and that with it he could actually communicate with aliens and the recently departed (who had to be informed of their circumstances)"

    Is it intentional as stated here?

    Anti-Conspiratorial: They often assert a disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who believe legitimate and proven conspiracies..."

  • Can you provide a link to where Tesla drsated the nerophone? I googled it and got these;

    http://www.newneurophone.com

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Flanagan

    Could the Misinformation be intentional as stated here?

    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.LaBrat said:

    this is a very interesting area, carrin   i was in agreement   and, as it happens, one of my secret radio talk show hosts, very convincingly done to portray someone i had known (an ex), leaked an item so unlikely that i researched it and was quite surprised to find that it was true   

    there are 'ne'er do well' 'well to do' types involved, with access to the toys     i was treated to an array of techno marvels designed to lead me to a premature expiry date    fortunately i don't have any ex's who would knowingly (much less gleefully) participate in something of such nature, so i didn't believe enough of it for it to take hold 

    nikola tesla wrote that e.t. had channeled the instructions for the neurophone (what is being used to hurt us), and that with it he could actually communicate with aliens and the recently departed (who had to be informed of their circumstances)   it is almost identical to the montaulk legends except that it is a more trustworthy source, and also happens to parallel converging interests of harvard's murdered ufo-abduction specialist dr john mack

    putting 'near-death-experience' (that 'tunnel') and out-of-body experiences (astral projection) beside ufo or even military abduction perhaps helps this cosmic cross-over come into better focus   it is all still a very nebulous 'grey area' ;-)

    cdn reporter serge monast's project bluebeam got him killed - he leaked the illuminati's upcoming decade's agenda (correctly 'predicting' the euro etc), which includes a physicist in 1974 disclosing the army's (not, 'developing of') perfecting the capacity to insert "a thought in your head and make you think you thought it" (posted by big orange)

    i accept that thoughts are seeded, and i was so convinced of the two way effect that my first ever blog discusses it

    https://peacepink.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-syn-tel-is-literally-u...

    i tried to convince big 'l' of this from my personal experience when he expressed his doubts   he listened to my reasoning and did not argue with me   i do seem to recall, however, his mentioning an alternative possibility which seems to have 'seeded' an insight that began percolating and has lately begun to steam:   what about hypnotic induction?   thoughts can be 'triggered', after all

    i know a diagnosed schizophrenic who seems to speak knowledgably about passing between alternate existences    we were discussing this and he told me abut a time he was reading his own thoughts off a computer screen in real time

                                                          wouldn't that convince you?

    i asked him whether there wasn't some possibility that whatever is sending this signal to the computer to print these words, is also sending the same signal to his brain to think the same thoughts at the same time - inducing the illusion of monitoring the thoughts directly             

              (remember tesla and where all this syn-tel technology comes from in the first place!)

    when i think about all the things i have said, thinking 'they' were going to hear it anyway - secret things, hurtful to some - private things...i wish i had thought about this angle a bit sooner

    one time, i had a 'thought' that was couched in my typical style   i used to play guitar at an open stage and used a lot of stage names   i was in the men's room when the thought 'struck' me for another : 'don X Y'   ('don't ask why')   i came out and asked someone who 'knows stuff' if he wanted to hear my idea and he kept a pretty straight face when he replied "why?"

    there's also a very rich kid who likes to quote items i have expressed to myself in the so-called privacy of my head  considering   (that has stopped since i first reported it here)   and i do recall, often enough, that my head was operated on illegally, most likely by dr ewan cameron himself, and quite likely includes proto-typical M-K hardware

         (have you seen my photo's, btw?   there are no hospital records of this illegal, non-consensual brain surgery)

    so for me to say 'maybe it's actually not really 2-way after all' was a bit of a step    but this is a good field to be outstanding in all by yourself   this insight into an intriguing alternative possibility grants me a certain amount of freedom and independance of perspective in this heavily regulated (charged) field

  • The following is Adhiminem;

    LaBrat said:

               dotty's 'closed to comments' sycophantic and hypocritical deep thought 'reunited at last' love-fest

    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.

  • This comment bringing  Chomsky into two way v2k 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.

    LaBrat said:

    dotty's 'closed to comments' sycophantic and hypocritical deep thought 'reunited at last' love-fest ignores a serious logistical problem when attempting to account for that whole 'human' side of this man-machine 'interface':     it's the 'we're not machines' (or rats) part 

    noam chomsky, whatever his political 'eccentricities', remains on top of the heap in decoding human thought processes from our 'transformative generative grammars'    below is part of his deconstruction of skinner's illogic 

    also i note there is mention by deep thought of ufo abductions and cattle mutilations being conducted exclusively by human military forces - but with no mention of what unearthly technology makes these possible or even 'desirable' 

    this apparent lack of familiarity with the works of wehrner von braun, carol rosin, john mack and others (particularly mack) may explain why his analysis (the technical aspects of which do not appear to be fully substantiated) is based on such an inappropriate psychological model, as outlined in the chomsky quotes

    for any who are not aware of the drastic philosophical and practical limitations of so-called 'stimulus-response' or 'rat' psychology, for which the medicating 'behaviourists' came to be known, the chapter by noam chomsky on 'skinner' and operant conditioning is a brilliantly incisive deconstruction of this widely-heralded pseudo-science:  

    (noam chomsky on skinner:)

    "Skinner's thesis is that external factors consisting of present stimulation and the history of reinforcement (in particular, the frequency, arrangement, and withholding of reinforcing stimuli) are of overwhelming importance, and that the general principles revealed in laboratory studies of these phenomena provide the basis for understanding the complexities of verbal behavior. He confidently and repeatedly voices his claim to have demonstrated that the contribution of the speaker is quite trivial and elementary, and that precise prediction of verbal behavior involves only specification of the few external factors that he has isolated experimentally with lower organisms.

    "Careful study of this book (and of the research on which it draws) reveals, however, that these astonishing claims are far from justified. It indicates, furthermore, that the insights that have been achieved in the laboratories of the reinforcement theorist, though quite genuine, can be applied to complex human behavior only in the most gross and superficial way, and that speculative attempts to discuss linguistic behavior in these terms alone omit from consideration factors of fundamental importance that are, no doubt, amenable to scientific study, although their specific character cannot at present be precisely formulated. Since Skinner's work is the most extensive attempt to accommodate human behavior involving higher mental faculties within a strict behaviorist schema of the type that has attracted many linguists and philosophers, as well as psychologists, a detailed documentation is of independent interest. The magnitude of the failure of this attempt to account for verbal behavior serves as a kind of measure of the importance of the factors omitted from consideration, and an indication of how little is really known about this remarkably complex phenomenon."

    http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm

    (laB rat:)

    dotty, i don't think this is one of those discussions where you're allegations about my "impaired mechanics of linguistics" are going to be much help to you...

    one who adopts this simplistic psychological misappropriation, which is considered by real social scientists to actually hold some measure of value when applied to animals (who operate primarily by instinct - as opposed to sentient creatures such as ourselves whose physical reality is already an entirely artificial construction mediated by linguistic structures and cultural codes), one will easily fall into 'automatic' modes of defeatism, such as you have displayed with comments such as "there is no use - the perps are too powerful"     but even this is just more social construction of reality - narrowing it, in this sad case


  • You just admitted that You're the very Troll i spoke to Full Name about!!!


    Permalink Reply by David ofTomorrow 1 hour agoDelete


    LOL!!! 

    You know the problem is Not that the Troll is here.....the problem is that those with authority allow the Troll to do his duty.

    LaBrat said:

    not much anyone can do about it    


    LaBrat said:

    not much anyone can do about it     from one point of view, 'they' ARE the authorities     surely you were around when atlanti tio (a moderator) had all the work he did putting together target witness video evidence to send to the council of europe and secretary general (the proper authorities) on TI's behalf destroyed when his account and machine got hacked, and all the videos blanked before his very eyes     

    and for the conspiracy buffs:  teo and i were discussing hacked accounts and altered or deleted messages at that moment      now don't go join dotty here in trolling the mods and blaming them for this - they have their hands full with the "spammers and scammers", let alone the "trolls" they warn us about quite fairly


  • LOL!!! 

    You know the problem is Not that the Troll is here.....the problem is that those with authority allow the Troll to do his duty.

     "Dereliction of Duty"


    FULL NAME said:

    Any shills detected yet?
  • Any shills detected yet?
  • Yes. you did accuse me of doing heroin and of trying to make it look good to other members. You have multiple times accused me of crystal meth use, as well as crack use.

    Any way, please keep responding to my post. When you have used each and every item listred as troll tactics on this very blog, I will use it to show others what a troll is....Labrat.

  • This is the troll tool you just used in citing chomsky;
    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.

  • This fact is Obvious: LaBrat has Zero experience with v2k.

This reply was deleted.