Subversion of Social Movement by Adversarial Agents

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Subversion of Social Movement by Adversarial Agents

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:15 pm



A wide-ranging and frank survey of LEO techniques post-Occupy.

Some highlights:

(4) Develop Attractive Alternatives

This technique involves developing attractive alternatives which compete for the time and commitment of individuals who are primed for activation. For example, an agent might be assigned to subvert Group X, who vandalize laboratories and set experimentation animals free. Covertly, the infiltrated agent might volunteer to create or update Webpages for a few lawful animal rescue groups. That would create the access needed for the agent to place invisible text on the main page of each site, perhaps using 2-point font of the same color as the Webpage background. The hidden text would contain key words that could cause Google to classify the pages as related to Group X, and thus they could be included in search results for Group X. The agent might also insert tiny=hidden hyperlinks so that all the lawful groups link to each other as well as to major animal rights organizations such as the Humane Society. Strategic use of hyperlinks may also increase a search ranking. The result of this type of ‘‘reverse honeypot’’ operation could be that when people Google ‘‘Group X,’’ most or all of the lawful rescue groups may be returned in the search result, placed higher than Group X, and thus they will be more likely viewed first.


Didn't expect to see a technical discussion of (kinda amateur and hamfisted) SEO, but this ties back into that great document about Mayo Shattuck III's 9/11 SEO blitz.

Further:

6) Reverse Recruiting Using Demoralizing Information
Commitment ambiguity may be created by exposing social movement members and potential
recruits to contradictory evidence and beliefs, or through the use of believable
disinformation, causing them to lose faith,
momentum, or interest. This is a reverse recruiting effort in which subversive
information is deployed with the intention of destabilizing the movement’s
recruiting efforts, and causing its members to leave the group.
Ademoralizing information campaign may expose the hypocrisies and double
standards of a movement’s leaders, illuminate evidence which undermines the
beliefs of the group, or even disseminate convincing misinformation—all of
these being designed to weaken individual, even group, commitment and raise
a sense of betrayal or personal risk. ‘‘Free riders’’ may be particularly
vulnerable to this subversive technique; these individuals are sympathizers
who hang around social movements saying the right words and wearing the
right clothes,31 but whose commitment is shallow. A demoralization
campaign may help drive them away from a cause before a turning point
occurs in their life that might make them vulnerable to recruitment.


And finally, this one should give anyone of any political persuasion some cause for pause...

(13) Intrapsychic Wounding
In her 2002 book Forging Gay Identities, Elizabeth Armstrong examined
multiple homosexual social movements in San Francisco from the 1950s to
1990s.43 She argued, and her data seemed to suggest, that many groups
sustained irreversible damage in response to the emergence of HIV in the
early 1980s. Armstrong explained: ‘‘The AIDS epidemic challenged every
aspect of the gay identity movement: the lives and bodies of gay men,
beliefs about the healthfulness of gay sex, hard-won pride in gay identity,
and the movement’s political and cultural organizations.’’44 Thus, the ‘‘hit’’
to morale and the fear of a new way to die tore at the structure and
resourced capability of gay rights social movements to engage in public
encounters, or in some cases even to continue functioning.


Examined through a different lens, Armstrong’s data arguably demonstrates
the subversive potential present in the intrapsychic wounding of the collective
consciousness of a social movement. Emile Durkheim classically defined
collective consciousness as the ‘‘. . . totality of beliefs and sentiments
common to the average members of a society. . .’’45 It is, in essence, the
shared beliefs, hopes, values, and thought characteristics of a group.

Intrapsychic wounds derive from specific physical or emotional trauma.
They may result from single events, such as witnessing an execution, being
injured in a fight or in combat, or perhaps seeing a friend taken away by
police. Wounding may also result from years of emotional abuse, repeated
exposure to death in a war zone, or living in a dangerous neighborhood for
a long period of time. Julie Vellacott has described intrapsychic wounds as
an ‘‘internal oppressor.’’46 They are a blow to individual self-esteem and
confidence, and, as Elizabeth Armstrong’s data seemed to suggest, possibly
to the collective consciousness of a social movement as well. The possibility
that intrapsychic wounding, sufficiently debilitating, may cause the
momentum and morale of a social movement to collapse seems reasonable.
Some evidence supports that suspicion.

The violent response of many dictators to the rise of the ‘‘Arab Spring’’
revolts in the Middle East and northern Africa could be seen through the
lens of intrapsychic wounding. The killing, beating, and tear gassing of
demonstrators could be deemed efforts to instill and increase a fear of
death, fear of harm, and fear of punishment in the minds of demonstrators
and rebels; in other words, to inculcate intrapsychic wounds.

But public butcheries are risky because they may fail to inculcate a
debilitating intrapsychic wound. Instead, they may energize resistance, and
even convert participants into hard core activists.
A steadfast and certain
resolution often develops in some people when they are under fire. Though
movement members may, in fact, be psychologically traumatized, they may
also adopt a ‘‘fight to the death’’ attitude in response to overt and brutal
subversion efforts by a government. Another form of intrapsychic
subversion may be less risky.

The Middle East countries roiled by the Arab Spring had been controlled,
for decades, by dictators who stifled dissent through small scale,
individualized actions. People were frequently arrested, beaten, falsely
convicted, penalized and punished, fired from jobs, prohibited from
attending school, or raped. Many of these abuses recurred, even increased,
during the uprisings. Collective wounding may occur when stories of what
happened to individuals circulate, the harm being inflicted through the
sum of the fears these conversations produce, perhaps by aggravating
already present post-traumatic stress disorder. Analytically, aggregate induced
wounding, rather than large scale=single massive event wounding,
is probably the more efficient and less risky form of intrapsychic subversion.


:thumbsup Boots to your face, forever!!! Cheers, gang.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10169
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Subversion of Social Movement by Adversarial Agents

Postby chump » Fri May 08, 2015 6:46 pm

Image

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/ ... rolls.html
How to Beat Internet Trolls
Posted on April 4, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog

In Order To Beat ‘Em, You Have to Know Their Game …

In order to beat Internet trolls, you have to know their strategies.

Below are 17 common games played by trolls to disrupt our power to learn, inform, and organize on the web …

1. Threaten those who speak out, to try to intimidate them and their readers into silence.

2. Misquote the Bible to pretend that God commands us to be obedient slaves to authority … even if the powers-that-be are downright tyrants.

3. Start a partisan divide-and-conquer fight or otherwise push emotional buttons to sow discord and ensure that cooperation is thwarted. Get people fighting against each other instead of the 3corrupt powers-that-be. Use baseless caricatures to rile everyone up. For example, start a religious war whenever possible using stereotypes like “all Jews are selfish”, “all Christians are crazy” or “all Muslims are terrorists”. Accuse the author of being a gay, pro-abortion limp-wristed wimp or being a fundamentalist pro-war hick when the discussion has nothing to do with abortion, sexuality, religion, war or region. Appeal to people’s basest prejudices and biases. And (as explained by H. Michael Sweeney’s 25 Rules of Disinformation) push the author into a defensive posture:

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule … 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.

(The person trying to smear reputation may not be a random knucklehead … he may, in fact, be a government agent, or a member of the group he’s smearing.)

4. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so 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. Or accuse the author of being a narcissist.

5. Pretend it’s hopeless because we’ll be squashed if we try. For example, every time a whistleblower leaks information, say “he’s going to be bumped off”. If people talk about protesting, organizing, boycotting, shareholder activism, spreading the real facts, moving our money or taking other constructive action, write things to scare and discourage people, say something like “we don’t have any chance because they have drones and they’ll just kill us if we try”, or “Americans are too stupid, lazy and greedy, so they’ll never help out.” Encourage people to be apathetic instead of trying to change things.

6. Demand complete, fool-proof and guaranteed solutions to the problems being discussed. For example, if a reporter breaks the story that the big banks conspired to rig a market, ask “given that people are selfish and that no regulation can close all possible loopholes … how are you going to change human nature?”, and pretend that it’s not worth talking about the details of the market manipulation. This discourages people from reporting on and publicizing the corruption, fraud and other real problems. And it ensures that not enough people will spread the facts so that the majority know what’s really going on.

7. Suggest extreme, over-the-top, counter-productive solutions which will hurt more than help, or which are wholly disproportionate to what is being discussed. For example, if the discussion is whether or not to break up the big banks or to go back on the gold standard, say that everyone over 30 should be killed because they are sell-outs and irredeemable, or that all of the banks should be bombed. This discredits the attempt to spread the facts and to organize, and is simply the web method of the provocateur.

8. Pretend that alternative media – such as blogs written by the top experts in their fields, without any middleman – are untrustworthy or are motivated solely by money (for example, use the derogatory term “blogspam” for any blog posting, pretending that there is no original or insightful reporting, but that the person is simply doing it for ad revenue).

9. Coordinate with a couple of others to “shout down” reasonable comments. This is especially effective when the posters launch an avalanche of comments in quick succession … the original, reasonable comment gets lost or attacked so much that it is largely lost. Use “forum sliding” and “topic dilution” to so dilute and distract the conversation that people forget the original point.

10. Use technology and numbers to gain leverage. You can either hire low-wage workers in India or other developing countries to “astroturf” (see this and this) or – if you work for the government – you can use military personnel or subcontractors to monitor social media and “correct” information which you don’t like (and see this). You can pay students to post pro-government comments online. You can even use software which allows you to quickly create and alternate between numerous false identities, each with their own internet address. Or program software to write the comments itself.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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. 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 them 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.

14. Censor social media, so that the hardest-hitting information is buried. If you can’t censor it, set up “free speech zones” to push dissent into dank, dark corners where no one will see it.

15. When the powers-that-be cut corners and take criminally reckless gambles with our lives and our livelihoods, protect them by pretending that the inevitable result – nuclear accidents, financial crises, terrorist attacks or other disasters – were “unforeseeable” and that “no could have known”.

16. Protect the rich and powerful by labeling any allegations of criminal activity as being a “conspiracy theory”. After all, it was the CIA itself which created the perjorative term “conspiracy theorist” and gave advice on how to attack people on that basis. For example, when Goldman gets caught rigging markets, label the accusations as mere conspiracies. Throw in the tired out cliches “tinfoil hat” and “live in your mom’s basement.”

17. 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 the criticism — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

Postscript: Over a number of years, we’ve found that the most effective way to fight disruption and disinformation is to link to a post such as this one which rounds up disruption techniques, and then to cite the disinfo technique you think is being used.

Specifically, we’ve found the following format to be highly effective in educating people in a non-confrontational manner about which game the troll is playing:

Good Number 1!

Or simply:

#7

(include the link so people can see what you’re referring to.)

The reason this is effective is that other readers will learn about the specific disruption tactic being used … in context, like seeing wildlife while holding a wildlife guide, so that one learns what it looks like “in the field”. At the same time, you come across as humorous and light-hearted instead of heavy-handed or overly-intense.

Try it … It works.


=======================
comment from above:
Tom C... i • 16 hours ago

I've seen this list somewhere before... hmm... where have I seen it... oh yes.

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

Except, it's not from an instruction on how to "beat internet trolls." It's from an instruction on how to counter government propaganda! Enjoy your COINTELPRO everyone, you're being targeted with it *right now.*

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


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

======================
Also this:

http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/s ... r-radicals
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)


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

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies

24 February 2014. Related: GCHQ Online Deception:

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 ... otage.html

12 July 2012



A sends:

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.



Edited to add:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4zlMkNnn4

Published on Apr 25, 2015

On March 24th, 2013 a shill on God Like Productions made a critical error. The shill made this error in the forum thread at GLP entitled, "Medical Type Says Sandy Hook is Total Bullshit."

They were active on the topic of Sandy Hook and only 3 months after the event there took place. And, because the shill was observed attempting to discredit the notion that Sandy Hook was a conspiracy of any kind on behalf of their employer, can we not then assume their employer was involved in the conspiracy?

http://www.insanemedia.net/forum-shill- ... 7015a/2924


-------------------------
http://www.fmsasg.com/SocialNetworkAnalysis/

Image
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Subversion of Social Movement by Adversarial Agents

Postby chump » Fri May 22, 2015 7:54 pm

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
Logical Fallacies

An Encyclopedia of Errors of Reasoning

The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.

What is a Logical Fallacy?

A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy. I say “roughly speaking” because this definition has a few problems, the most important of which are outlined below. Some logical fallacies are more common than others, and so have been named and defined. When people speak of logical fallacies they often mean to refer to this collection of well-known errors of reasoning, rather than to fallacies in the broader, more technical sense given above.

Formal and Informal Fallacies

There are several different ways in which fallacies may be categorised. It’s possible, for instance, to distinguish between formal fallacies and informal fallacies.

Formal Fallacies (Deductive Fallacies)

Philosophers distinguish between two types of argument: deductive and inductive. For each type of argument, there is a different understanding of what counts as a fallacy.

Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be “valid”) it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion.

The classic example of a deductively valid argument is:

(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
Therefore:
(3) Socrates is mortal.

It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is deductively valid.

Any deductive argument that fails to meet this (very high) standard commits a logical error, and so, technically, is fallacious. This includes many arguments that we would usually accept as good arguments, arguments that make their conclusions highly probable, but not certain. Arguments of this kind, arguments that aren’t deductively valid, are said to commit a “formal fallacy”.

Informal Fallacies

Inductive arguments needn’t be as rigorous as deductive arguments in order to be good arguments. Good inductive arguments lend support to their conclusions, but even if their premises are true then that doesn’t establish with 100% certainty that their conclusions are true. Even a good inductive argument with true premises might have a false conclusion; that the argument is a good one and that its premises are true only establishes that its conclusion is probably true.

All inductive arguments, even good ones, are therefore deductively invalid, and so “fallacious” in the strictest sense. The premises of an inductive argument do not, and are not intended to, entail the truth of the argument’s conclusion, and so even the best inductive argument falls short of deductive validity.

Because all inductive arguments are technically invalid, different terminology is needed to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments than is used to distinguish good and bad deductive arguments (else every inductive argument would be given the bad label: “invalid”). The terms most often used to distinguish good and bad inductive arguments are “strong” and “weak”.

An example of a strong inductive argument would be:

(1) Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
Therefore:
(2) The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.

Arguments that fail to meet the standards required of inductive arguments commit fallacies in addition to formal fallacies. It is these “informal fallacies” that are most often described by guides to good thinking, and that are the primary concern of most critical thinking courses and of this site.

Logical and Factual Errors

Arguments consist of premises, inferences, and conclusions. Arguments containing bad inferences, i.e. inferences where the premises don’t give adequate support for the conclusion drawn, can certainly be called fallacious. What is less clear is whether arguments containing false premises but which are otherwise fine should be called fallacious.

If a fallacy is an error of reasoning, then strictly speaking such arguments are not fallacious; their reasoning, their logic, is sound. However, many of the traditional fallacies are of just this kind. It’s therefore best to define fallacy in a way that includes them; this site will therefore use the word fallacy in a broad sense, including both formal and informal fallacies, and both logical and factual errors.

Taxonomy of Fallacies

Once it has been decided what is to count as a logical fallacy, the question remains as to how the various fallacies are to be categorised. The most common classification of fallacies groups fallacies of relevance, of ambiguity, and of presumption.

Arguments that commit fallacies of relevance rely on premises that aren’t relevant to the truth of the conclusion. The various irrelevant appeals are all fallacies of relevance, as are ad hominems.

Arguments that commit fallacies of ambiguity, such as equivocation or the straw man fallacy, manipulate language in misleading ways.

Arguments that commit fallacies of presumption contain false premises, and so fail to establish their conclusion. For example, arguments based on a false dilemma or circular arguments both commit fallacies of presumption.

These categories have to be treated quite loosely. Some fallacies are difficult to place in any category; others belong in two or three. The ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, for example, could be classified either as a fallacy of ambiguity (an attempt to switch definitions of “Scotsman”) or as a fallacy of presumption (it begs the question, reinterpreting the evidence to fit its conclusion rather than forming its conclusion on the basis of the evidence)


=========================

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.c ... iques.html
Friday, May 11, 2012
Logical Fallacies/Propaganda Techniques explained

...Below see a good little video on propaganda. Realizing I blab on about how we are manipulated.
Saying things like "shoot the messenger" or "appeal to authority" or "blame the victim"
What is an "ad hominem" Believe it or not this is stuff we should all know. Part of our critical thinking skill set.
Jan Irvin from Gnostic Media made a neat little video.
Less then one hour.
Doing a decent job of explaining propaganda techniques or devices & how they are used to mold your thinking and mine...


Logical Fallacies with Dr. Michael Labossiere

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhhJAGjBIEw
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Subversion of Social Movement by Adversarial Agents

Postby chump » Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:33 pm


https://www.corbettreport.com/seralinis ... documents/
The case against Monsanto is the gift that keeps on giving.

Previously in these pages I discussed how the trial of Monsanto currently taking place in the California Northern District Court—technically known as “Multidistrict Litigation,” with the formal title of “In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2741)“—is airing some of the agrichemical behemoth’s dirtiest laundry. In my article “Monsatan On Trial For Roundup Cancer,” I revealed how dozens of lawsuits filed against Monsanto for its role in causing the non-Hodgkin lymphoma of thousands of people across the US had been rolled into one dramatic court case, and how discovery from that case had yielded the remarkable deathbed testimony of EPA whistleblower Jess Rowland.

Then new documents emerged from the case confirming what many had long suspected: Monsanto has an entire internal corporate program (appropriately entitled “Let Nothing Go”) employing an army of internet trolls who spam the company’s propaganda on every social media post, forum and online comment board where its products and practices are being discussed.

Just this week, one of the law firms working on the trial released an equally explosive collection of “Monsanto’s Secret Documents,” proving another long-suspected claim against the world’s most evil company: That it has in fact ghostwritten many of the key articles defending its products in the mainstream press—articles that were supposedly written by “independent” journalists. When the embarrassing details of the story came to light, including a suggested “draft” of an article written by Monsanto for Forbes “journalist” Henry Miller in 2015 that was exactly identical to the article that appeared under his name, Forbes pulled the piece from its website and ended Miller’s employment. In a different leaked email exchange, former Monsanto consultant John Acquavella complained to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication,” adding, “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

... con'd
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Subversion of Social Movement by Adversarial Agents

Postby chump » Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:47 pm


http://themillenniumreport.com/2016/01/ ... f-defense/

“FALSE FLAGS” are LEGAL PROPAGANDA PRODUCED by the Department of Defense
12 WAYS TO RECOGNIZE a BBG PRODUCTION

By Anonymous Patriots
January 18, 2016

Why would the government support false flag events?

This question would go through our minds every time we would see a new false flag event plastered all over the media. Like many of you, we would think, “It has to be real, otherwise the government and participants would be engaging in treason.” But the narrative and the evidence never seem to match up. How odd that at Sandy Hook and at San Bernardino there were so many responders from federal agencies and that other drills were already happening on the same day just a mile away. Coincidence seemed unlikely for one event. Totally unlikely for two.

It even seemed that the “official story” that was “fed” to the news agencies was filled with holes on purpose. When 450 responders showed up in San Bernardino, including FEMA, ATF, Homeland Security, FBI, DoD, and all local agencies, within 14 minutes and had their lawn chairs and coolers set up while most of them walked around aimlessly with no worries in the world, we couldn’t take it anymore. We had always known that “false flags” usually precede severe military action and we couldn’t really imagine military action within US domestic borders since the military is not empowered to act against its own citizens.

Therefore, we decided to WAKE UP and study the false flag phenomena. Don’t presume to think this is just another conspiracy theory article. What you will read will chill you to the bone. We know this is a long article, but while you were sleeping much has been done to destroy your country. You need to see the immense work that is being done behind your back to destroy your beloved country. And, most important, when you get to the end of the article, we have a CITIZEN CALL TO ACTION.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

We beseech you, our fellow Americans, to read this article and pass it along to others. Unplug your electronic tethers and read this very important article. If not for you, then the children and loved ones in your life who will live like slaves in this hellish New World Order that is already here. Our patriotic duty was to do the research; yours is to read and distribute to other patriots.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Like many of you, we believe that 9-11 was a false flag event. We don’t know exactly who, what, why and how, but we know that when overwhelming circumstantial evidence points in the opposite direction of the official story, something is wrong. So when the Sandy Hook and San Bernardino events unfolded, we became very uneasy as these events seemed to be a new type of false flag. In both events, the president was demanding that Americans give up their guns and constitutional rights even before the fake pools of blood on the steps of the Sandy Hook school dried.

Actually, the pools of blood on the sidewalk at Sandy Hook were the first indicator of fraud: two uncoagulated pools of liquid blood without a trail of blood, without any victims ever coming out of the building to “make” the pools, and authorities ignoring them and not even treating them as part of a crime scene. Every picture we saw or video we listened to was completely fake and looked more like a drill. Nothing added up. In San Bernardino there were ten different “black SUV” pictures released that are completely contradictory. An alarm kept going off in our heads saying, “Why are they purposely releasing contrary evidence as though they didn’t care that the evidence made them complicit with a crime, or even treason?”

We started studying the evidence. We were beyond the basic evidence—that crisis actors were used to stage both events and multiple government agencies showed up within minutes. But one thing that totally took us by surprise is that San Bernardino was the site of the largest Jade Helm 2015 military maneuvers. We asked ourselves, “Why would so many people, including so many U.S. government agencies, be involved in deceiving Americans?” It took courage to look beyond the first veil of illusion.

If you have followed Sandy Hook and San Bernardino you realize that no one (except the patsies) are killed. No one dies; therefore, no crime has been committed. This knowledge gave us some comfort, but raised many questions concerning false flag events in America.

What is the goal of the recent (since 2012) false flag events?

Who gains from the appearance of insidious criminal events?

What mechanisms are used to silence so many participants, i.e. paid crisis actors, government agencies?

How do these agencies “get away with” using creating lies, distortions, and false flags? Wouldn’t that be called propaganda?

After pondering these questions relentlessly, we lifted another veil of illusion. We asked, “What if these activities to manipulate public opinion were legal? Could there be a law that protects the president and US agencies (local, state, and federal) from conducting false flag event? So we changed our focus and began to research false flags as being legal propaganda. We found the answers in plain sight. b]We were beyond disbelief when we discovered that the US Congress has passed laws, post 9-11, that makes state-sponsored propaganda legal.[/b] Take a moment and think about that before reading on.

Our research lead us to discover the tenets of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which makes it legal to propagate and broadcast propaganda within America. We are all being treated like enemy combatants whose “perception” must be managed to come in line with presidential “national security” policies. The Department of Defense may now broadcast propaganda with the approval and authority of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) both internationally and domestically. Just Google it folks. There is actually an agency with this name.

Perception Management

Any presidential policy may be accompanied by broadcasts that use subliminal programming as part of perception management. These mechanisms that squelch dissent have been used since the Reagan Administration to shape public opinion to support administrative policies. Wars require domestic support and these “black ops” programs started to use the “psy-ops” tools of the military. DARPA, the research and development arm of the military, has created many tools to control the enemy through media that shapes public perception, which we will elucidate later in this article. It is called perception management and has been used legally in advertising since the late seventies and also in electronic warfare throughout the world to “brain-wash” our enemies and shape their perception and opinion of America.

The only question left was the issue of what the goal of the president (or the real powers behind him—the Council on Foreign Relations) might be, besides the obvious one of having few people who disagree with his policies. We then studied the United Nations Small Arms Treaty which Obama signed in 2011, but couldn’t get Congress to ratify. In this treaty we found the goal Obama is driving towards — disarm America, with the help of the United Nations. But two things have to happen: 1) we have to give up our guns or have them taken from us and 2) the UN has to have a military presence in our country. Keep in mind that the United Nations cannot have a military presence in our country, unless invited.

Have you already started connecting the dots? Remember seeing all of the images of all that UN military equipment that was distributed throughout America during Jade Helm 2015? It seemed that besides the San Bernardino exercises, moving UN heavy military equipment throughout America was the only thing that we noticed happening during Jade Helm 2015. Another veil lifted. Obama’s job was to go for a gun grab, either by Congressional action or UN treaty. But patriots started waking up and our elected officials in Congress could not ratify the United Nations Small Arms Treaty. So Obama and his political minions began to manufacture false flags, hoping that our horror to Sandy Hook and San Bernardino would cause us to lay down our rights and guns.

Keep in mind, that false flag incidents and state-sponsored propaganda could not be considered treasonous acts against Americans as Congress (through the NDAA) had made treason–legal.

Congress Does Not Ratify Gun-Taking Treaty

Congress would not, and has not, ratified the UN Small Arms Treaty, nor would they vote on Second Amendment restrictions. So false flags were used to create conscious and “unconscious” support of a national gun grab. Sandy Hook was the most heinous “example” of what “guns do.” Incredible anti-gun sentiment was created by Sandy Hook and people still reel from it with anger and hatred for “people on drugs” and “gun lovers.” San Bernardino happened right before the congressional vote on gun control. And even with images of San Bernardino a day before the congressional vote on gun control, Obama lost his attempt for gun restrictions.

Now do you see why he has taken things into his own hands and signed into effect 23 Executive Orders that move his gun control policies forward in contradistinction to the fact that Congress rejected such ideas? The motive became quite clear once you read the UN Treaty – to dismantle the Second Amendment and disarm America. Since Obama couldn’t use the United Nations or Congress to get his way, he just wrote his own laws and pretends like Executive Orders outrank congressional law. Obama is behind the UN timeline of disarmament, since the other nations who signed the treaty have already begun to disarm its citizens.

Controlling the Human Domain

Once we understood the goal and the legalization of propaganda, with its insidious DARPA electronic war devices, the rest fell into place as one Internet search after the next revealed the truth before our eyes. This is shocking and almost inconceivable. But it is law (NDAA) and Congress did not stop this law from being passed.

Another question is why our elected officials did not call out the president in using subliminal programming, psy-ops perception management and war-like marketing strategies to shape public opinion? Simple. They use it themselves in their own campaigns. Subliminal programming is openly used in the broadcasting industry – that’s why people believe untruths from the news and watch mindless TV while drinking their cola beverage (It’s the Real Thing) and imagining that the official story on main stream media is the only story.

As Jade Helm 2015 taught us, the military is interested in Controlling the Human Domain, the very motto of their operation emblazoned on their logo. Fellow patriots, we are in a war which is coming from all sides towards the middle. We cannot trust authorities and politicians to have our best interest at heart. We need to wake up and observe more carefully and ask more questions even when a nagging voice in the back of our minds says, “It is the official story, I should not question it,” or “I should trust my elected officials to come forward and blow a whistle if such heinous propaganda was being perpetrated upon unsuspecting Americans.” Better yet, perhaps we need to know how we are being controlled! So before we lose you in our web of deception and lies, remember that Jade Helm is telling us that the goal is to control the human domain.

First we need to drill down on some of the basic terms and strategies before we bring the full picture into view. Stay with us and keep reading, fellow patriots.

The Deceptive Art of Perception Management

Throughout human history, governments have been interested in “mastering the human domain.” The mind control of their populations, what we once called propaganda, is now called perception management, political diplomacy and other such deceptive names. This theme is echoed in the slogan for Jade Helm, “Mastering the human domain.”

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which was just updated for 2016, provides that the Department of Defense, through the Broadcasting Board of Governors, controls all broadcasting both international and domestic. Therefore, Obama is acting legally carrying out “false flag” events inside the US borders. Obama is not a traitor for this activity; he is a lawyer who made it legal to be a traitor. Obama is not only at war with Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen; he is also at war with Americans who don’t support his policies.

Obama has made a commitment to disarm Americans called the United Nation’s Small Arms Treaty. This treaty is consistent with his efforts to dismantle the Second Amendment. It is this motivation that seems to have driven his non-stop agenda for disarming America and empowering the executive branch of the government, i.e., his own agenda of bombing sovereign nations and bringing America under the control of the United Nations and his administration. This, coupled with his continued efforts to broaden his powers through the NDAA, Executive Orders, and Presidential Policy Directives creates a clear picture of manipulating public sentiment with the force of a military war on his American opponents.

United Nations Small Arms Treaty

In 2011 Obama signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty and since then there have been 108 mass shootings in America in less than a 4 year period. In the four years before Obama was elected (2003-2007) there was a total of 27 mass shootings. Prior to 2003 there was an average of 2.5 mass shootings per year. In 2015 alone, there have been over 58. That is over 20 times higher than it was before. (MSA Data, 2015)

The Small Arms Guns Treaty has been passed by the UN and is ready to go into effect across the world. The treaty passed in the general assembly in April 2013. The treaty, which seeks to prevent and control the illicit trade of weapons while regulating the international trade of them, includes measures such as creating a national gun registry; mandating control of firearms and ammunition; regulating the manufacture of gun parts; and limiting stores’ ability to sell firearms. The NRA and a bipartisan majority of pro-gun Senators have succeeded in blocking this treaty’s ratification in the United States. This treaty violates the Second Amendment. For any UN treaty to have any effect on American laws, it must first be ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

NDAA Provides for Legal Propaganda

Through the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act the US government has the legal regulation to use propaganda against foreign audiences and American citizens. The intention is to sway public opinion by using television, radio, newspapers, and social media targeting American and foreign targets in controlled psy-ops or perception management.

The NDAA has an amendment added that negates the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 (SMA) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. These laws made propaganda used to influence foreigners and US citizens illegal. The Broadcasting Board of Governors is not new as it was created from SMA; although today it is quite a different agency as you will read. Originally, this agency claimed to “inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Amendment 114 of the NDAA was approved by the House in May of 2012.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (2012) reads:

Sec. 501. (a) The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors may, upon request and reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling such a request, make available, in the United States, motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad.

According to Michael Hastings: “The new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public.”

“It removes the protection for Americans,” says a Pentagon official who is concerned about the law. “It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.”

Representatives Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) in the [url=Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (2012)[/url](H.R. 5736), advocate that it is time to liberate the authority of the US government to broadcast American produced foreign propaganda in the U.S.

The amendment empowers the State Department and Pentagon to utilize all forms of media against the American public for the sake of coercing US citizens to believe whatever version of the truth the US government wants them to believe. All oversight is removed with [url=http://mountainrunner.us/files/2012/05/bills-112hr5736ih.pdf]Amendment 114.[/url] Regardless of whether the information disseminated is truthful, partially truthful or completely false bears no weight.

Four billion dollars per year is spent by the Pentagon on propaganda aimed at the American public; as well as $202 million spent by the Department of Defense on misinformation operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2011. The Pentagon is using fake handles on social media sites to purvey false information, harass users and enact perception management to influence Americans. Sophisticated software allows military to engage in online conversations with coordinated answers, blog comments and instant messaging remarks that are solely meant to spread pro-American propaganda.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

This new perception management is called Information Operations (IO), which is defined as “the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.”

Repealing the Smith-Mundt Act allows the direct deployment of these tactics on the American public.


Information Operations activities are undertaken to shape the essential narrative of a conflict or situation and thus affect the attitudes and behaviors of the targeted audience and equates descriptions of combat operations with standard marketing strategies. With the NDAA 2012 in its current form, the State Department and Pentagon can go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets and directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public. Successful wars require domestic acceptance.

The NDAA 2012 – specifically Section 1021(b)(2) – has already institutionalized the U.S. military’s ability to indefinitely detain, without charge or trial, citizens and non-citizens alike. Major parts of the legislation are based on the assumption that key legal protections for individuals are incompatible with the requirements of national security.

The purpose of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 is “to authorize the domestic dissemination of information and material about the United States intended primarily for foreign audiences.” The act was added to the 2013 NDAA bill as section of 1078 to amend certain passages of Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 passed Congress as part of the NDAA 2013 on December 28, 2012. Amendments made to the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987 allow for materials produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be released within US borders.

National Defense Resources Preparedness Order


In 2012 Obama signed an order called National Defense Resources Preparedness giving himself explicit control over the nation and declaring a permanent state of Martial Law in the U.S. The very same year, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which gave the U.S. Government the right to detain [b[anyone for anything indefinitely[/b] . He has renewed that order every year since then. The Obama administration was even able to get a court ruling overturned after the ruling had successfully removed the Indefinite Detention provision from the NDAA.

Virginia Wakes Up

A bill introduced in the Virginia assembly (HB2144) would take the next step in stopping illegal federal kidnapping under the 2012 NDAA. Virginia stood alone and passed the first bill in the country addressing detention provisions written into the NDAA in 2012. That law forbids state agencies, in some situations, from cooperating with any federal attempts to exercise the indefinite detention provisions written into sections 1021 and 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

What Did They Say about NDAA?

“NDAA, and SOPA would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world.” Sergey Brin, Google co-founder

“I never thought I would have to write this: but – incredibly – Congress has now passed the National Defense Appropriations Act, with Amendment 1031, which allows for the military detention of American citizens.” Naomi Wolf, author

“…bold and dangerous attempt to establish martial law in America.” Presidential candidate Rand Paul

“…was carefully crafted to mislead the public.” Justin Amash, U. S. Representative

“Provisions that were snuck into the bill with little notice from mainstream media could spell indefinite detention without a hearing, keep Guantanamo open, and hinder fair trials.” Amnesty International

“Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill: This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.” Glenn Greenwald, constitutional lawyer

“What the American People are witnessing now with this new legislation is the further development of an American Police State into a Military Dictatorship, a process that was started by the so-called USA Patriot Act in 2001.” “If it is enacted into law, America will lose all pretense of having our Military subjected to the control of democratically elected civilian leaders as originally envisioned and required by the Constitution. Professor Francis Boyle, constitutional law authority at the University of Illinois, Champaign.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

NDAA Versions Continue to Erode Bill of Rights and Constitution

NDAA 2013


The 2013 version of the NDAA allows the State Department and Defense Department to direct the same kind of massive propaganda campaigns here in the U.S. that are presently waged as part of American war efforts in foreign lands. The US government propaganda is directed at the American people with the belief that successful wars require domestic acceptance.

The 2013 NDAA overturned a 64-year ban on the domestic dissemination of propaganda which is described as public diplomacy information. It preaches freedom of the press abroad while practicing censorship at home. The resources and personnel who focus on talking about America overseas are diverted in favor of domestic perception management. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.

NDAA 2014

NDAA 2014 underwrote $662 billion for continued US aggression in our many foreign wars while, on the domestic front, it violates the Bill of Rights. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, it authorizes presidents “to order the military to pick up and imprison people, including U.S. citizens, without charging them or putting them on trial.”

The ACLU charges the provisions of NDAA “were negotiated by a small group of members of Congress, in secret, and without proper congressional review (and), are inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution….(our) fundamental freedoms are on the line.”

We had already had many of the provisions of the Bill of Rights supplanted by the Patriot Act. President Carter has denounced the Patriot Act for authorizing federal agents “to search people’s homes and businesses secretly, to confiscate property without any deadline or without giving notice that the intrusion had taken place, and to collect without notice personal information on American citizens including their medical histories, books checked out of libraries, and goods they purchase.”

NDAA 2016

The National Defense Authorization Act for 2016 is costing Americans $612 billion. Obama skirts around the Constitution by having the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Sections 1021 and 1022, which authorizes indefinite military detention, without charge or without trial, any person, including an American citizen, and applies the “Laws of War,” to U.S. soil, making the United States legally a battlefield.

Obama claims he will develop “An Appropriate Legal Regime” to permanently detain people prior to having committed any crime. The idea of these detentions would be to prevent any individual from committing a possible future crime. Obama says that he might detain someone up to ten years before they might commit a crime. The NDAA removes all of the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights except the 2nd Amendment, and you know how hard Obama is trying to get rid of that also.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Obama’s Executive Orders

President Obama has been using executive orders (EO’s) in ways they have never been used before. He is using them to do end-runs around Congress by legislating from the White House. Some EO’s are dormant but pose a potential future threat. One of those is EO 13603 which was signed EO 13603 on March 16, 2012. The purpose is to delegate authority and address “National Defense” resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950. It provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials and services to promote “National Defense.” It is an update of a prior EO’s on the National Defense Resources Preparedness. One difference which is concerning is that the definition “national emergency” is now broader and quite vague.

Executive Order 13603 – National Defense Resources Preparedness allows the government to completely control our lives through the “industrial and technological base,” should the president declare a “national emergency. " It gives Obama the power over “all commodities and products capable of being ingested by human beings and animals; all forms of energy; all forms of civil transportation; all usable water from all sources; health resources; forces labor such as military conscription; and federal officials can issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources.”

Presidential Policy Directives


In the Barack Obama Administration, the directives that are used to promulgate Presidential decisions on “National Security” matters are designated Presidential Policy Directives (PPDs). Directives that are used to initiate policy review procedures are called Presidential Study Directives (PSDs). In May 2013, the Administration issued a previously unknown category of directive known as a Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG).

Presidential Policy Directives have the same legal force as an Executive Order, forming a body of largely secret law. Executive Orders are public and must be published in the Federal Register whereas PPDs are not. It is a secret law.

President Obama’s directive on hostage policy was originally released as Presidential Policy Directive numbered PPD-29. When the White House corrected that number to PPD-30, it meant Obama had issued a secret directive as PPD-29. Of the 30 PPDs issued by Obama, 19 have not been released. And for 11 of those, the White House has not disclosed even the subject of the order. Not even Congress has a copy. It’s a domain of unchecked presidential authority.


Alarming Trends in the Military


Since Obama took office, an unprecedented number of top military leaders have been removed from their posts – nearly 200 generals, flag officers and other high-ranking officials. They are being “removed” at a rate of about one per week. In 2013, an ex-Navy Seal came forward and warned that Obama is firing soldiers who say they would not fire upon US Citizens if ordered.

Recently, the Department of Homeland Security was caught buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, enough to have sustained our war in Iraq for twenty years. Earlier this year, the DHS purchased another 62 million rounds of AR-15 hollow point ammo claiming it was allocated for “target practice.”

The military wants to transform Information Operations into a core military competency on a par with air, ground, maritime and special operations including: the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.

IO intends to shape the essential narrative of a conflict or situation and thus affect the attitudes and behaviors of the targeted audience and equates combat operations with standard marketing strategies.

History of American Internal Propaganda and the BBG


In January 1983, President Reagan took the first formal step to create an unprecedented peacetime propaganda bureaucracy by signing National Security Decision Directive 77, entitled “Management of Public Diplomacy Relative to National Security.” Reagan deemed it “necessary to strengthen the organization, planning and coordination of the various aspects of public diplomacy of the United States Government.” Reagan ordered the creation of a special planning group within the National Security Council to direct these “public diplomacy” campaigns. This group was run through the Department of Defense.

The DoD’s Broadcasting Board of Governors traces its beginnings to the early Cold War years, as a covert propaganda project of the newly-created Central Intelligence Agency to wage “psychological warfare” against Communist regimes and others deemed a threat to US interests. In 1948, National Security Council Directive 10/2 officially authorized the CIA to engage in “covert operations” against the Communist Menace. Clause 5 of the directive defined “covert operations” as “propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.” Propaganda quickly became one of the key weapons in the CIA’s covert operations arsenal. The agency established and funded radio stations, newspapers, magazines, historical societies, research institutes, and cultural programs all over Europe.

The BBG was officially formed in 1999 and ran on a $721 million dollar annual budget. It reports directly to the Secretary of State and operates a host of Cold War-era CIA spinoffs and “psychological warfare” projects: Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Radio Martí, Voice of America, Radio Liberation from Bolshevism and a dozen other government-funded radio stations and media outlets pumping out pro-American propaganda across the globe.

The BBG is managed by a military think-tank and is no longer funded by the CIA’s black budget. Its role in “psychological warfare” continues but its operations are openly funded. The BBG and its subsidiaries still engage in propaganda warfare, subversion and soft-power projection against anyone deemed hostile to US interests and “National Security.” And it is still deeply intertwined with the same military and CIA-connected intelligence organizations. The Broadcasting Board of Governors runs a propaganda network that blankets the globe.

The BBG is also involved in the technology of post-Cold War, Internet-era propaganda. It has bankrolled satellite Internet access in Iran and continues to fund an SMS-based social network in Cuba called Piramideo.

As the BBG outlined in a 2013 fact sheet for its “Internet Anti-Censorship” unit: “The BBG collaborates with other Internet freedom projects and organizations, including RFA’s Open Technology Fund, the State Department, USAID, and DARPAs SAFER Warfighter Communications Program. IAC is also reaching out to other groups interested in Internet freedom such as Google, Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy’s Center for International Media Assistance.”

Today, the Congressionally-funded federal agency is also one of the biggest backers of grassroots and open-source Internet privacy technology. These investments started in 2012, when the BBG launched the “Open Technology Fund” (OTF). The BBG endowed Radio Free Asia’s Open Technology Fund with a multimillion dollar budget and a single task: “to fulfill the US Congressional global mandate for Internet freedom.”

The Open Technology Fund supports many new encryption programs like: CryptoCat, Tor, Open Whisper Systems, LEAP, GlobaLeaks, ChatSecure, and Orbot. In 2014, Congress increased the BBG’s “Internet freedom” budget to $25 million. In 2014, OTF launched a coordinated project with Dropbox and Google to make free, easy-to-use privacy tools, and Facebook announced it was incorporating the underlying encryption technology of one of OTF’s flagship projects – OpenWhisper Systems – into its WhatsApp text messaging service.

It should seem suspicious that DoD’s money would be so warmly welcomed by some of the Internet’s fiercest anti-government activists. Why is a federally-funded CIA spinoff with decades of experience in “psychological warfare” suddenly blowing tens of millions in government funds on privacy tools meant to protect people from being surveilled by another arm of the very same government? It is called: “Perception Management.”

Perception Management Is Being Used Against You

Perception management is a term originated by the US Department of Defense. It defines it as: “Actions to convey and/or deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning as well as to intelligence systems and leaders at all to influence official estimates, ultimately resulting in foreign behaviors and official actions favorable to the originator’s objectives. In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover and deception, and psychological operations.”

The factors that influence the targeted audience consist of the following:

Ambiguity: If ambiguity increases, the perceiver may find it harder to form an accurate perception.

Social status: a person’s real or perceived position in society or in an organization.

Impression management: an attempt to control the perceptions or impressions of others.

The phrase “perception management” has often functioned as a euphemism for “an aspect of information warfare.” The distinction between “perception management” and public diplomacy, which “does not, as a rule, involve falsehood and deception, whereas these are important ingredients of perception management; the purpose is to get the other side to believe what one wishes it to believe, whatever the truth may be.”

Although perception management operations are typically carried out within the international arena between governments, and between governments and citizens, use of perception management techniques have become part of mainstream information management systems. Businesses may even contract with other businesses to conduct perception management for them, or they may conduct it in-house with their public relations staff.

The term “perception management” is not new to the lexicon of government language. For years the FBI has listed foreign perception management as one of eight “key issue threats” to “National Security”, including it with terrorism, attacks on critical US infrastructure, and weapons proliferation among others. The FBI clearly recognizes perception management as a threat when it is directed at the US by foreign governments. Deception and sleight of hand are important in gaining advantages in war, both to gain domestic support of the operations and for the military against the enemy

In late 2001, after 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld created the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence (OSI). The Office of Special Plans was created with a goal of selective intelligence vetting outside the normal chartered intelligence apparatus, with foreign propaganda activities moved to the Office of Information Activities under the direction of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict. Strategic influence, special plans, psychological operations (psy-ops), and perception management are all direct synonyms within the DoD.

The DoD has identified the information domain as its new “asymmetric flank.” The level of use of perception management is continuing to grow throughout the military. There are now specialists, known as psychological operations officers and civil affairs officers, whose only purpose is to decide how to present information/propaganda to the media and to the people of the current country.

False Flag (Perception Management) Characteristics

Let’s compare what Wikipedia tells us are the “12 basic strategies of perception management” with what might be its counterpart in “characteristics of a false flag event.”

Ambiguity: if ambiguity increases, the perceiver finds it harder to form an accurate perception.

Counterpart: Eyewitnesses have conflicting accounts.

Social status: targeting a person’s position in society or in an organization

Counterpart: The official narrative has obvious domestic and geopolitical advantages for the governing body.

Impression management: the perceptions or impressions of others

Counterpart: The narrative behind the attack serves to leverage emotions like fear, as well as patriotism, in order to manufacture consent around a previously controversial issue.

Preparation – having clear goals and knowing the ideal position you want people to hold.

Counterpart: Military and law enforcement training drills occur on the same day very close by causing confusion to obscure eye-witness testimony and allow orchestrators to plant both patsies, disinformation and backup operatives. Immediate calls for gun control or restricting civil liberties.

Credibility – all information uses prejudices or expectations to increase credibility.

Counterpart: News agencies keep saying that they are “being given reports” or “being told” and do not cite who reported or told them the unconfirmed information they broadcast as real.

Multi-channel support – have multiple arguments and fabricated facts to reinforce your information.

Counterpart: No obvious motive for the mass attack and no prior indicators. Shooter leaves manifesto or lots of evidence “proving” they were “radicalized” or “on drugs” or other were other undesirables.

Centralized control – employ entities to promote propaganda.

Counterpart: Fake “victims” and crisis actors.

Security – the nature of the deception campaign is known by few.

Counterpart: All drill participants and crisis actors sign Non-disclosure Agreements with “National

Security” clause promising swift and severe punishment if broken. Everyone involved is on a “need to know” basis and kept in the dark about the overall intent of the event.


Flexibility – the deception campaign adapts and changes over time as needs change.

Counterpart: Evidence gets destroyed or tampered with and the details don’t matter because the culprits are dead. No more interest in an investigation.

Coordination – organize in a hierarchy to maintain consistent distribution of information.

Counterpart: The federal agencies trump the local law enforcement agencies due to the “National

Security” element of the drill which is ultimately controlled by the Department of Defense.


Concealment – contradicting information is destroyed.

Counterpart: Culprit is dead and evidence disappears from news reports, Internet, and media. Patsy has no military training, yet shoots extremely fast and accurately but no authority looks at the evidence.

Untruthful statements – fabricate the truth.

Counterpart: Families of “victims” have acting backgrounds and receive payoffs in GoFundMe accounts and direct payoffs, especially mortgages. They often show little to no emotion, and even smile or laugh. The lie perpetuates and the “official story” is shaped by the media into truth.

Narrative Networks


In 2015, DARPA’s “Narrative Networks” (or N2) program is producing results. The project is intended to analyze how “narratives” play into human psychology, delving into the way these constructs affect the mind. A narrative is a way of phrasing something, a choice of words that is likely a biased strategy to frame information.

“Narratives exert a powerful influence on human thoughts, emotions and behavior and can be particularly important in security contexts. Conflict resolution and counterterrorism scenarios and detecting the neural response underlying empathy induced by stories is of critical importance.” From DARPA researchers in a paper published in the Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

Mastery of “narratives” could potentially be used to manipulate the perception of a population using platforms of communication like television to subtly and potently make a person think a certain way.

“Governments often use stories to present information, so understanding how we comprehend them is important,” said co-author Eric Schumacher, an associate professor of psychology at the Georgia Institute of Technology.



Researchers observed a phenomenon of “tunnel vision,” or impaired reasoning, triggered in the brain when viewers processed a suspenseful moment. When suspense grew, brain activity in the viewers’ peripheral vision decreased.



The US Military has a long history of funding psychological experiments, some entrenched in human rights violations. Now we have the Pentagon-funded DARPA program which pays researchers at colleges and other scientists millions of dollars to enhance and bolster methods of war. Such work places great technological power in the hands of the Department of Defense.

DARPA’s Narrative Networks as Mind-Control

DARPA launched the Narrative Networks program to understand how narratives influence human cognition and behavior, and apply those findings in international security contexts. Narratives may consolidate memory, shape emotions, cue heuristics and biases in judgment, and influence group distinctions.

The Narrative Networks Program has three parallel tracks of research and development:

Develop quantitative analytic tools to study narratives and their effects on human behavior in security contexts;

Analyze the neurobiological impact of narratives on hormones and neurotransmitters, reward processing, and emotion-cognition interaction; and

Develop models and simulations of narrative influence in social and environmental contexts, develop sensors to determine their impact on individuals and groups, and suggest doctrinal modifications.

DARPA is studying Narrative Comprehension and Persuasion in a study entitled: Toward Narrative Disruptors and Inductors: Mapping the Narrative Comprehension Network and Its Persuasive Effects. The DARPA-funded research project ($6.1 million) is studying the effectiveness of different narratives in efforts of mass persuasion. Using MRI and EEG they will map areas of the brain involved in narrative comprehension and even attempt to enhance or disrupt narrative understanding using this information as well as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. It will study the neurobiology of narrative comprehension, validate narrative theories and explore the connection between narrative and persuasion. This groundbreaking research study will employ multi-modal neuro-imaging, combining the temporal resolution of EEG with the spatial resolution of MRI.

This project will provide empirical evidence integrating brain regions and cognitive processes into a neural network of narrative comprehension. By virtue of the experimental design, these relationships will also directly inform the primary aspects of narrative and strategic communication under examination: narrative validity, narrative transportation, and vertical integration. The empirical correlation of narrative theory to neurocognitive activity is an important advance in the understanding of narrative and how the brain governs narrative comprehension.

The programs goals include:

Integrate narrative theory, neuroimaging, and persuasive outcomes.

Resolve conceptual problems in narrative and psychology of religion.

Produce significant innovations in the study of the neuropsychology of narrative.

Generate practical innovations.

Tests key narrative theories from communication, literary studies, and psychology.

Uses stimuli based on religious master narratives.

Understand the psychological effects of particular message features.

Attend to the relationship between narrative and political violence in contested populations.

Disrupt or enhance aspects of narrative structure, and/or brain functioning, to minimize or maximize persuasive effects on subject proclivity to engage in political violence.

Mapping the Narrative Comprehension Network will provide empirical leverage for developing models of narrative comprehension that are biologically plausible. Moreover, the current research will establish how narrative elicits persuasion in the brain.

Predicting a particular narrative message influence on an audience.

Introducing new stories into the narrative system to disrupt its coherence.


Rational logic aspires to be objective, repeatable, consistent and impersonal, whereas narrative logic works on completely different principles. It is rooted in the simultaneously cognitive and emotional processing of information that marks human behavior, and finds its validity in principles of coherence and fidelity. These qualities help explain the seemingly irrational persuasive power of narrative and provide guidance for how to manipulate narrative stimuli in order to accurately map the Narrative Comprehension Network in the brain.

Culture provides schema, or templates, for ordering narrative data (top-down); individuals process incoming story data and organize it with a selected schema. The process continues until comprehension is achieved, or lack of comprehension mandates implementation of a new schema. A master narrative can be seen as an exemplar narrative schema. Because master narratives embody specific cultural values, they can be strategically deployed as an explanatory frame for current events in order to encourage a particular interpretation and for persuasive purposes. Master narratives execute ideological functions, positioning these cultural values as naturalized and universal.

Vertical integration is achieved when personal, local and master narratives all line up consistently. This congruence formulates a powerful model for identity formation and persuasion. Cognitive processes that are indicated by vertical integration to be part of the Narrative Comprehension Network include: self-recognition, identity, and theory of mind (to see oneself in a story), pattern recognition (to see parallels between master narratives and contemporary situations), and memory (to remember the master narrative elements).

Subliminal Mind Control – SSSS

The “Sound of Silence” is a military-intelligence code-word for certain psychotronic weapons of mass mind-control tested in the mid-1950s, perfected during the 70s, and used extensively by the US military in the early 90s. This weapon is based on subliminal carrier technology, or the Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS). It was developed for military use by Dr. Oliver Lowery of Norcross, Georgia, and is described in US Patent #5,159,703 – “Silent Subliminal Presentation System” for commercial use in 1992.



The patent abstract reads:

“A silent communications system in which non-aural carriers, in the very low (ELF) or very high audio-frequency (VHF) range or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude- or frequency-modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally, for inducement into the brain, typically through the use of loudspeakers, earphones, or piezoelectric transducers. The modulated carriers may be transmitted directly in real time or may be conveniently recorded and stored on mechanical, magnetic, or optical media for delayed or repeated transmission to the listener.”

The Sound of Silence Spread Spectrum broadcasting equipment allows for the implantation of thoughts, emotions, and even prescribed physical actions into human beings. In the private sector SSSS goes by the name Silent Subliminal Presentation System and the technology has also been released to certain corporate vendors who have attached brand names like BrainSpeak and Silent Subliminals to their own SSSS-based products.

It is a technology that uses subliminal programming that is carried over Ultra-High Frequency (UHF) broadcast waves, planting inaudible messages directly into the subconscious human mind. Perfected more than twenty years ago by the DoD and battlefield-tested upon Iraqi soldiers in the Gulf War during 1991, SSSS is a proven weapon.

The US Government has plans to extend the range of this technology to envelop all peoples, all countries through BBG broadcasts. SSSS is completely undetectable by those being targeted and it delivers its subliminal programming directly to the human brain via the auditory sense at frequencies that humans are incapable of perceiving as sound, there is no defense against it. Coupled with the use of supercomputers, an individual’s unique electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns can be digitally altered and then stored for rebroadcast via digital UHF. Computer-enhanced EEGs can identify and isolate the brain’s low-amplitude emotion signature clusters, synthesize them and they can then be broadcast over TV and radio signals directly into the brain where they can then silently trigger the same basic emotion in another human being.

DARPA and Social Media

The SMISC program has invested millions of dollars investigating social media, social networks, and how information spreads across them. One study, funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), entitled “Containment Control for a Social Network with State-Dependent Connectivity” demonstrates that the mathematical principles used to control groups of autonomous robots can be applied to social networks in order to control human behavior. If properly calibrated, the mathematical models developed by Dixon and his fellow researchers could be used to sway the opinion of social networks toward a desired set of behaviors. It is called soft Info-warfare.

DARPA launched its SMISC program in 2011 to examine ways social networks could be used for propaganda and what broadly falls under the title of Military Information Support Operations (MISO), formerly known as Psychological Operations – psy-ops. The SMISC program includes studies that analyze Twitter, investigate the spread of Internet memes; automatically identifying deceptive content in social media with linguistic cues; and modeling user attitude toward controversial topics in online social media. It models how collaboration between “key influencers” in social networks could affect the behavior of groups within the network by using the principle of “containment control.”

British intelligence agency GCHQ url=http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/07/ghcqs-chinese-menu-of-tools-spread-disinformation-across-internet/]has developed tools specifically aimed at leveraging social media for “effects” operations[/url]. The organization has shared its methods with the NSA, and these capabilities have been used in Afghanistan and elsewhere to “shape” information available to members of targeted organizations online and via mobile phones.

The Department of Defense already uses some social media manipulation techniques as part of its “information support” operations, targeting message boards
and websites associated with foreign groups that are considered “extremist.” In April, the Associated Press uncovered an effort by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2009 to create ZunZuneo, a Twitter-like mobile social network aimed at undermining the Communist regime in Cuba. The research that DoD is financing has much broader cultural implications than as a tool of information warfare against adversaries abroad.

Psy-Ops and DARPA

DARPA’s new ultrasonic neural interface devices can frame information as narratives which shape, explain, and make sense of data. Cognitive computers themselves can also do this – creating news articles from pooled data with no human being involved. What used to be called propaganda is now called “strategic communications” that tell a stories or create narrative networks. DARPA is focused on creating counter-narratives, or stories they believe will counteract the effects of radicalization.

The Ultrasonic Neural Interface Program is used to affect changes in a person’s beliefs, their sense of identity, and even memory, partly because they stimulate the release of brain chemicals. Neural interfaces and narrative networks can manipulate the brain using electrical and/or magnetic energy. The most common is Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). When targeted at a specific area in the brain, TMS can create a variety of effects, including emotional changes and bodily movement. Its goals were to: (i) map out the precise areas of the brain that are affected by stories; (ii) analyze how people respond to specific stories; and (iii) test ways of changing their response to a story, i.e. by altering the story format, and/or zapping their brains with TMS. This technique is more properly referred to as url=http://www.neuromodulation.com/]neuromodulation[/url], and involves stimulating the release of neurotransmitters by targeting specific areas of the brain with electromagnetic pulses.

DARPA’s research has found that stories affect our emotions, our cultural and religious beliefs, and even memory. In other words, the narratives we hear (on TV, in the news, blogs, tweets, etc) affect important brain chemicals, and therefore our very identities. So do pulsed electromagnetic fields – such as TMS.

DARPA is clearly aware of the vast range of possible applications for these devices, and have also been funding a new way of altering brain chemistry, called pulsed ultrasound. Focused ultrasound can deliver, “complex spatio-temporal patterns of acoustic waves” to achieve similar results to TMS, but has a spatial resolution which is five times greater, and can reach far deeper into the brain. Ultrasound can be used to activate reward pathways (dopamine) in the brain which may be used to condition and/or reinforce certain desired attributes and/or to motivate specific behavioral actions.

DARPA has spent several years analyzing universal narrative structures, and the physiological effects they have on people, as well as tracking popular narratives (and the memes they produce) in social media. The US Government’s Strategic Communications plan involves sentiment analysis, the use of counter-narratives, and ‘downvoting’ stories which it does not approve of, preventing discussion of certain ‘banned’ topics, as well as using “persona management software” to create false identities, and thus manipulate public perception of news and fool people into believing in a false “popular consensus.”

One part of the new Psy-op strategy is controlling the conversation. By manipulating the news we hear, our primal responses can therefore be influenced, without us even knowing it. Brain-to-computer interfaces (BCIs) are already being used to link people’s minds/feelings to a movie they’re watching. MyndPlay have devised an EEG headset which monitors the viewer’s emotional reactions to the movie, and changes the ending accordingly.

New DARPA Projects to Enslave Our Minds

DARPA is one of the government-sponsored research agencies that most boldly explores the future of science and technology. Given that many of its research projects have military applications, it has been traditional for the agency to be secretive about them. In recent years, however, DARPA has been embracing the benefits of open source, particularly for promoting rapid innovation. With an annual budget of $2.8 billion, DARPA drives a good portion of the advanced research that happens at universities and corporations in the US.

DARPA has given out open source software that has been sponsored by the agency. The focus area for first year is the XDATA initiative that is developing open source infrastructure for supporting big data. DARPA has an open source strategy for areas of work including big data to help increase the impact of government investments in building a flexible technology base.

One new DARPA program is to remotely disrupt political dissent and extremism by employing “Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) in tandem with sophisticated propaganda based on this technology. The research at Arizona State University is entitled, “Toward Narrative Disruptors and Inductors: Mapping the Narrative Comprehension Network and its Persuasive Effects.” TMS stimulates the temporal lobe of the brain with electromagnetic fields. This research aims to induce or disrupt the operation of narratives within the brain. This area of study has received $100 million in funding via Obama’s ten-year BRAIN Project, as well as a $1.3 billion commitment from Europe.

DARPA is the research and development tool of the National Security Council and thus has carte blanche to openly seek help from industry and the private sector to build the most cutting edge war devices that anyone can imagine. Below we list some declassified projects but the ones that are most heinous are still classified.

DARPA’s Open Catalog contains a curated list of DARPA-sponsored software and peer-reviewed publications. DARPA sponsors fundamental and applied research in a variety of areas that may lead to experimental results and reusable technology designed to benefit multiple government domains. The DARPA Open Catalog organizes publicly releasable material from DARPA programs. DARPA has an open strategy to help increase the impact of government investments. DARPA is interested in building communities around government-funded research. DARPA plans to continue to make available information generated by DARPA programs, including software, publications, data, and experimental results.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Some recently released DARPA projects are listed below and demonstrate that DARPA is focused on “Controlling the Human Domain” in every way possible.

The Active Authentication (AA) program seeks to develop novel ways of validating the identity of computer users by focusing on the unique aspects of individuals through software-based biometrics. Biometrics are defined as the characteristics used to recognize individuals based on one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. This program is focused on behavioral biometrics.

~Translation: Foundation code that gives NSA a system to identify all users whether encrypted or not.

The Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales (ADAMS) program seeks to create, adapt and apply technology to anomaly characterization and detection in massive data sets. Anomalies in data cue the collection of additional, actionable information in a wide variety of real world contexts.

~Translation: NSA spying on everything to find “red flags” that trigger further surveillance.

The Automated Program Analysis for Cybersecurity (APAC) program aims to address the challenge of timely and robust security validation of mobile apps by first defining security properties to be measured against and then developing automated tools to perform the measuring. APAC seeks to apply recent research breakthroughs in this field in an attempt to scale DoD’s program analysis capability to a level never before achieved with an automated solution.

~Translation: DoD system to analyze all streaming data from all systems, encrypted or otherwise.

The Memex Program was released to Open Source in September 2014. Memex seeks to develop software that advances online search capabilities far beyond the current state of the art. Creation of a new domain-specific indexing and search paradigm will provide mechanisms for improved content discovery, information extraction, information retrieval, user collaboration, and extension of current search capabilities to the deep web, the dark web, and non-traditional (e.g. multimedia) content.

~Translation: NSA will now control all search engines that use Memex as the base code.

The Mission-oriented Resilient Clouds (MRC) program is addressing some of the security challenges facing cloud computing by developing technologies to detect, diagnose and respond to attacks in the cloud, with the goal of effectively building a ‘community health system’ for the cloud. MRC is also developing technologies intended to enable missions that are supported by cloud computing and other networked systems to continue functioning while under cyberattack.

~Translation: NSA control of all cloud computing with back doors directly to US cyber-control systems.

DARPA’s Programming Computation on Encrypted Data (PROCEED) program is a research effort that seeks to develop methods that allow computing with encrypted data without first decrypting that data, making it possible to compute more securely in untrusted environments.

~Translation: NSA double-speak for controlling all encryption and having a method of seeing through encryption without being detected.

The SAFER Program seeks to develop technology to enable safe, resilient communications over the Internet, particularly in situations in which third parties attempt to discover the identity or location of the end users, or block communications. The program also seeks to provide the technological quality of service required to support applications such as electronic mail, instant messaging, voice over IP, and other media that promote effective communication.

~Translation: NSA double-speak for complete control of IP address identifiers for surveillance from all devices.

Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) program is to develop a new science of social networks built on an emerging technology base. Through the program, DARPA seeks to develop tools to support the efforts of human operators to counter misinformation or deception campaigns with truthful information.

~Translation: NSA control of all social media.

XDATA Program is developing an open source software library for big data to help overcome the challenges of effectively scaling to modern data volume and characteristics. The program is developing the tools and techniques to process and analyze large sets of imperfect, incomplete data. Its programs and publications focus on the areas of analytics, visualization, and infrastructure to efficiently fuse, analyze, and disseminate these large volumes of data.

~Translation: NSA system to analyze and target media users and all data.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

DARPA and the Brain Initiative

President Obama announced the BRAIN initiative in April 2013. Today, the initiative is supported by several federal agencies as well as dozens of technology firms, academic institutions, scientists and other key contributors to the field of neuroscience. DARPA is supporting the BRAIN initiative through a number of programs.

Electrical Prescriptions (ElectRx) – The ElectRx program aims to help the human body heal itself through neuromodulation of organ functions using ultra-miniaturized devices, approximately the size of individual nerve fibers, which could be delivered through minimally invasive injection.

~Translation: Military control of our neurological systems.

Hand Proprioception and Touch Interfaces (HAPTIX) – The HAPTIX program aims to create fully implantable, modular and reconfigurable neural-interface microsystems that communicate wirelessly with external modules, such as a prosthesis interface link, to deliver naturalistic sensations to amputees.

~Translation: Wireless brain-control over other electronic systems (robots, vehicles, planes, etc.).

Neuro Function, Activity, Structure and Technology (Neuro-FAST) – The Neuro-FAST program seeks to enable unprecedented visualization and decoding of brain activity to better characterize and mitigate threats to the human brain, as well as facilitate development of brain-in-the loop systems to accelerate and improve functional behaviors. The program has developed CLARITY, a revolutionary tissue-preservation method, and builds off recent discoveries in genetics, optical recordings and brain-computer interfaces offering faster, better views of the entire brain.

~Translation: The basis of cybernetic interfaces between humans and machines.

Restoring Active Memory (RAM) – The RAM program aims to develop and test a wireless, fully implantable neural-interface medical device for human clinical use. The device would facilitate the formation of new memories and retrieval of existing ones.

~Translation: Control of memories and the creation of personal identities generated by computers.

Reliable Neural-Interface Technology (RE-NET)
– The RE-NET program seeks to develop the technologies needed to reliably extract information from the nervous system, and to do so at a scale and rate necessary to control complex machines, such as high-performance prosthetic limbs.

~Translation: Neural interrogation invades our minds.

Systems-Based Neurotechnology for Emerging Therapies (SUBNETS) – The SUBNETS program seeks to create implanted, closed-loop diagnostic and therapeutic systems for treating neuro-psychological illnesses and networks of the brain.

~Translation: Mechanical psychiatrists will be able to prescribe neural restructuring of the personality.

Patents for Mind Control and Psy-Ops


The arsenal of mind control technologies developed by the government is quite vast. A number of well researched books on the subject have been published revealing the complexity and variety of these technologies. The US Patents described below define technology used for behavior manipulation through all types of media. These patents reflect “old” technology compared to DARPA classified projects. This list just shows the pervasiveness of this technology that is commonly found in all types of media.

Nervous system manipulation by electromagnetic fields from monitors. US Patent #6,506,148, 1/14/2003

Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near 1/2 Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance. Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set. For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream, either as an RF signal or as a video signal. For certain monitors, pulsed electromagnetic fields capable of exciting sensory resonances in nearby subjects may be generated even as the displayed images are pulsed with subliminal intensity.

Computer monitor and TV monitors can be made to emit weak low-frequency electromagnetic fields by pulsing the intensity of displayed images. Experiments have shown that the 1/2 Hz sensory resonance can be excited in this manner in a subject near the monitor. The 2.4 Hz sensory resonance can also be excited in this fashion. A TV monitor or computer monitor can be used to manipulate the nervous system of nearby people.

This method can be used in making movies and recording video tapes and DVDs. Video tapes can be edited such as to overlay the pulsing by means of modulating hardware. US Patent #872528, 6/1/2001

Ultrasonic Speech Translator and Communication System, US Patent #5,539,705, M. A. Akerman, Curtis Ayers, Howard Haynes, July 23, 1996. A wireless communication system, undetectable by radio-frequency methods, for converting audio signals, including human voice, to electronic signals in the ultrasonic frequency range, transmitting the ultrasonic signal by way of acoustic pressure waves across a carrier medium, including gases, liquids and solids, and reconverting the ultrasonic acoustic pressure waves back to the original audio signal. This invention was made with government support under Contract DE-ACO5-840R2l400, awarded by the US Department of Energy to Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

Method and Recording for Producing Sounds and Messages to Achieve Alpha and Theta Brainwave States and Positive Emotional States in Humans, US Patent #5,352,181, Mark Davis, October 4, l994.

Method of and Apparatus for Inducing Desired States of Consciousness, US Patent #5.356,368, Robert Monroe, October 18, 1994. Improved methods and apparatus for entraining human brain patterns, employing frequency-following-response (FFR) techniques and facilitating attainment of desired states of consciousness.

Method of Inducing Mental, Emotional and Physical States of Consciousness, including Specific Mental Activity, in Human Beings, US Patent #5,213,562, Robert Monroe, May 25, 1993.

Subliminal Message Generator, US Patent #5,270,800, Robert Sweet, December 14, 1993. A combined subliminal and supraliminal message generator for use with a television receiver; permits complete control of subliminal messages and their presentation. Also applicable to cable television and computers.

Superimposing Method and Apparatus Useful for Subliminal Messages, US Patent #5,134,484, Joseph Wilson, July 28, 1992. Method of Changing a Person’s Behavior.

Silent Subliminal Presentation System, US Patent #5,159,703, Oliver Lowery, October 27, 1992. A silent communications system in which non-aural carriers in the very low or very high audio-frequency range, or in the adjacent ultrasonic frequency spectrum, are amplitude-modulated with the desired intelligence and propagated acoustically or vibrationally for inducement into the brain.

Method and System for Altering Consciousness, US Patent #5,123,899, James Gall, June 23, 1992. A system for altering the states of human consciousness involving the use of simultaneous application of multiple stimuli, preferably sounds, having differing frequencies.

Hearing System, US Patent #4,877,027, Wayne Brunkan, October 31, 1989. A method for directly inducing sound into the head of a person, using microwaves in the range of 100 MHz to 10,000 MHz, modulated with a waveform of frequency- modulated bursts.

Non-Invasive Method and Apparatus for Modulating Brain Signals through an External Magnetic or Electric Field to Reduce Pain, US Patent #4,889,526, Elizabeth Rauscher and William Van Bise, December 26, 1989.

Apparatus for Inducing Frequency Reduction in Brain Wave, US Patent #4,834,70l, Kazumi Masaki, May 30, 1989.

Non-Audible Speech Generation Method and Apparatus, US Patent #4,821,326, Norman MacLeod, April 11, 1989.

Method and Apparatus for Translating the EEG into Music to Induce and Control Various Psychological and Physiological States and to Control a Musical Instrument, US Patent #4,883,067, Knispel et. al., November 28, 1989.

Hearing Device, US Patent #4,858,612, Philip Stocklin, August 22, 1989. A method and apparatus for simulation of hearing in mammals by introduction of a plurality of microwaves into the regions of the auditory cortex.

US Patent #4,717,343, Alan Densky, January 5, 1988. A method of conditioning a person’s unconscious mind in order to effect desired change in the person’s behavior, and which does not require the services of a trained therapist.

Auditory Subliminal Programming System, US Patent #4,777,529, Richard Schultz and Raymond Dolejs, October 11, 1988.

Auditory Subliminal Message System and Method, US Patent #4,395,600, Rene Lundy and David Tyler, July 26, 1983. An amplitude-controlled subliminal message may be mixed with background music.

Device for the Induction of Specific Brain Wave Patterns, US Patent #4,335,710, John Williamson, June 22, 1982. Brainwave patterns associated with relaxed and meditative states in a subject are gradually induced without deleterious chemical or neurologic side effects.

Apparatus for Electrophysiological Stimulation, US Patent #4,227,516, Bruce Meland and Bernard Gindes, October 14, 1980.

Noise Generator and Transmitter, US Patent #4,034,741, Guy Adams and Jess Carden, Jr, July 12, 1977. An analgesic noise-generator.

Apparatus for the Treatment of Neuropsychic and Somatic Diseases with Heat, Light, Sound and VHF Electromagnetic Radiation, US Patent #3,773,049, L. Y. Rabichev, V. F. Vasiliev, A. S. Putilin, T. G. Ilina, P. V. Raku and L. P. Kemitsky, November 20, 1973. This is the patent for LIDA, the Soviet brainwashing machine.

Psycho-Acoustic Projector, US Patent #3,568,347, Andrew Flanders, February 23, 1971. A system for producing aural psychological disturbances and partial deafness in the enemy during combat situations.

False Flags are Domestic LEGAL Propaganda

By now your head is probably spinning and you are, like us, sick to the core at what our elected officials are permitting to happen in our country and the world in the United States’ name.

President Obama, and the powers that are behind him, weren’t kidding when he said that he would transform America. They have a motive, a means, and an opportunity to effect positive public support for any agenda items through the work of the DoD and the BBG within the boundaries of America. It doesn’t matter whether it is gun control, the Iran Deal, bombing other nations, TPP, ObamaCare, NDAA, or any agenda item, somehow he pushes it through without much resistance. And when public consent cannot be manufactured with perception management and psychological manipulation of narrative networks, Obama just writes another Executive Order, Presidential Policy Directive (PPD), Presidential Study Directives (PSD) or Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG), or whatever he wants to rename his misuse of executive authority.

One thing is for sure: Obama seems to be unchallenged by his fellow politicians who must be part of some larger scheme that coerces their votes. They must be complicit. There must be a message in the media that promotes common political schemes without being “illegal”, “treasonous”, or even uncommon. Shaping the narrative with “talking points” is perception management of narrative networks.

In the name of “National Security” Obama has bombed Syria, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, and Yemen without any congressional approval. These acts of war were accompanied with excellent smoke and mirrors – perception management and DARPA subliminal devices. Only a few lone voices pointed out that we need congressional approval to wage war! Crickets…

Could the crickets be DARPA electronic warfare bouncing around in our manipulated brains?

Could Obama’s speeches be electronic warfare aimed at our neural narrative networks?

Why is DARPA so set on creating things that “control the human domain,” just as Jade Helm?

Has Jade Helm 2015 ended or does it get renewed each year by Obama just like the NDAA?

Are we targets for pro-Obama propaganda provided by the DoD’s BBG?

Could some false flags (where no one truly dies) be more propaganda films created by the huge BBG broadcasting network?

YES. The answer to all of these questions above is YES.

What Can We Do, Fellow Patriots?

First.
Arm yourself with the truth – like a two-edged sword. Read and re-read this article as painful as it may be for you. Do your own research from what we have provided you.

Second. Arm yourself with a consciousness higher than the driving force of global manipulation for personal power and greed – like a personal shield. Personal self-awareness has always been the fulcrum of human evolution. Oftentimes, it comes down to a few people, or even one person, who turns the tide of evil away from controlling the evolution of human consciousness. One lawsuit can turn the tables. One law. One person. One Patriot.

Third. Arm yourself with the knowledge of the weapons being used against you and the motives. Once you have that knowledge, you can find devices to counteract some of those weapons. There are an equal number of good devices to counter the evil ones.

Fourth. Arm yourself with the knowledge to discern when narratives (“story-lies”) are being used to manipulate you against your will. Take the 12 Steps of Perception Management, as presented above, and apply them to possible false flag scenarios to learn to recognize the patterns and see through to reality.

Fifth. Arm yourself against your enemy and attempt to neutralize them using their own methods and devices. A call goes out to all Patriots to secretly subvert political manipulation of Americans on American soil. In other words, wait for the right moment and then throw a monkey wrench into the works. Help the evil devices malfunction and upset the “official story” with random acts of Patriotism.

[b]Sixth.
Arm yourself with the justice of the law and bring lawsuits against domestic propaganda and subliminal manipulation of Americans – or anyone.

Seventh. Arm yourself against government agendas that now consider Americans to be enemy combatants on domestic soil who must be supportive of agendas that take away American civil liberties and constitutional rights.

Of course, we forgot to mention the first and most primal step – ‘get mad as hell about it and don’t take it anymore.’ The idea that you have been manipulated most of your life by commercial interests through legal subliminal programming is enough to demand answers: “Why the hell do elected officials and the government ‘allow’ this to happen?” And now you are armed with the answer: The “government” is doing the same thing to us but with military grade electronic warfare that is mind-boggling.

Warning: As you begin to go back in your memory of these events (9-11, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, and many others) with this new awakening, you may feel raped, used, and manipulated. The more you watched the “shootings” the more you believed the “story” – the narrative. The more you were sucked in and could not get those images out of your head, the more your freedom was stolen. But, if you looked closely, the “man behind the curtain” is actually our own government. Only chaos and confusion arises from such evil manipulation and thus FEAR is bred. FEAR is another name for TERROR which is another name for WAR.

War is big business and it needs the best of marketing devices to get public support for presidential policy – in the name of “National Security,” which trumps all else.

We have an out-of-control president who uses military mind-control devices to manage the perceptions of American citizens to “make” them “allow” his unprecedented abuse of executive authority. Since he is the commander and chief and controls the DoD, which should have no authority inside of America, he needed the NDAA to legally permit him to consider Americans a threat to “National Security.” For five years he has consistently broaden his “powers” to take away civil liberties, virtually unchallenged.

The time is now to wake up and end electronic warfare in America through loopholes in the NDAA. This Act must be rewritten to specifically address these issues and make sure that American civil liberties are not violated by clever lawyers like Obama who have made treason legal.


( links at the original above)
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Subversion of Social Movement by Adversarial Agents

Postby DrEvil » Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:24 pm

^^Polite criticism: this is horseshit. I got to this part before I almost threw up in my mouth in disgust:

If you have followed Sandy Hook and San Bernardino you realize that no one (except the patsies) are killed. No one dies; therefore, no crime has been committed. This knowledge gave us some comfort, but raised many questions concerning false flag events in America.


There's skepticism and then there's being a credulous fool.

I had a look at the source of that travesty and found other nuggets like these:

Democrats will always engage in totally unscrupulous campaign conduct and vote fraud in order to steal an election anywhere in the 50 states. They have always done this, because that’s what ultra-liberals and left-wing extremists, dyed-in-the-wool socialists and hardcore communists do everywhere around the globe.


Trump has only ONE response to the ongoing soft coup being run by rogue elements within the U.S. Intelligence Community

A Military Response


Soros & His Bolsheviks Launch The Hot Phase Of The Purple Revolution *


If the purveyors of Cultural Marxism are not soon identified as traitors to the American Republic and duly arrested, they will continue to subvert this nation until there is nothing left but their quickly emerging Sodom and Gomorrah.


And it goes on and on and on. Good old fashioned fascist propaganda with a heavy helping of dumb-as-bricks conspiracy theories.

* The purple revolution here refers to the "coup attempt" against Trump and all that is good in this world.

Edit: bonus content, because it wasn't quite stupid enough already:

Pizzagate is so big it will eventually take down the U.S. Federal Government, just as Pedogate will collapse the World Shadow Government
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Subversion of Social Movement by Adversarial Agents

Postby Grizzly » Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:12 am

Does anyone else feel like reading about the Youtube shooting suspect is like being in a weird dream?
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... about_the/

So was "a woman shot her boyfriend as the result of a "domestic dispute and other victims were caught in the crossfire" a half-assed coverup attempt by youtube/google/alphabet? Timeline sure looks like it. (self.conspiracy)
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... he_result/

Working theory: YouTube shooter was a Monarch mind programming victim
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... arch_mind/

MSM in Australia changes skin and eye color of YT Shooter to make her appear more White
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/com ... lor_of_yt/

This whole thing is a mind fuck, especially that last link.
If Barthes can forgive me, “What the public wants is the image of passion Justice, not passion Justice itself.”
Grizzly
 
Posts: 1894
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Subversion of Social Movement by Adversarial Agents

Postby DrEvil » Thu Apr 05, 2018 9:26 am

That last link is wrong. Read the comments. The image (which has now been removed) was from her own Instagram account.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 2288
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Psyops and Meme Management

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest