Media Manipulation, Propaganda, and the Rules of Disinformation

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise." ~Adolf Hitler

“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” ~Joseph Goebbels

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." ~Adolf Hitler 

“If you're going to be crazy, you have to get paid for it or else you're going to be locked up.” ~Hunter S. Thompson

The Art of Bullshit

25 Tactics of Truth Suppression and Disinformation

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 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" 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 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.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" 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 with denial 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. 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.

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. 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 loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that 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 for items 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. Vanishing 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 may require 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 an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (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) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

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 proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

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.

Some choice selections now, from our propaganda tag: 

Stanford Prison Experiment

Ignorance Fuels Trust in Government, APA Study

Terrorists Killed 8 Americans Last Year (29 Dead Struck by Lightning)

Progressive Insurance Propaganda Paves Way to Riding with Big Brother

Book Burning in the Digital Age

Prosecution would have used false evidence to execute Casey Anthony

Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear?

Programming Your Kids: The Coloring Book of Terror

Sexual Subliminals in Kids' Shows

When False Flags Don't Fly

OBEDIENCE (Milgram's Experiments, 1962)


Elections Are Frauds

This first video came out at the end of last week. Now of course, the implications are a bit disturbing. But I couldn't help but laugh at how utterly stupid this young girl is. I weep for our future.

Some people have blamed Republicans for carrying out a deliberate campaign of voter fraud, but I think this is clearly a case of just how completely retarded young Americans have become. When it comes to real election fraud, the political overlords don't waste their time with the piss-ants on the street, as you will see below.

The truth is though, as scary as that bit was, there are much more sinister plots afoot when it comes to selecting our leaders.

Those of us who are old enough to remember will certainly recall the muddled and confused results in Florida, when it was decided there that George "Dubya" Bush would become the next President of the United States in 2000. Some folks still contend that Al Gore actually won the election. Whatever the actual count turned out to be down there, the Supreme Court finally stepped in to crown Dubya the new POTUS.

As the years have clicked by and technology advances, it has only become more easy to manipulate an election, and to cover up the fraud.
Rep. Tom Feeney (Fmr. Speaker of The House in Florida) employed this man from Oviedo, FL to rig elections and flip them 51% to 49%. Exit polling data was proven to be significantly different than the published results. Rep. Feeney was also the lobbyist for Yang Enterprises, the company who delivered the program.

So does it come down to a technology war between Republicans and Democrats? Hardly. The fraud is being perpetrated against you, the people, the voter, not in the battle between one politician and another. They already know who the winner is going to be, just like in a WWE wrestling match. Or at least the true power-brokers know who the winner will be, even if the contestants themselves don't. The whole idea here is to give the American public the illusion of choice. And doing that, is really no easy task when you have hundreds of millions of voters and a whole apparatus of well-meaning citizens participating in the voting process trying to make it as accurate as possible. The illusion of democracy must be complete in order to maintain control.

Nevertheless, we see not only that the technology is available, but that is is being used to alter the outcomes of elections. Especially in "close" contests where they make the average citizen really feel like their vote was so much more important than they ever realized. In reality, our leaders are not E-lected, they are SE-lected, by power-brokers operating behind closed door, in secret meetings, like those of the so-called Bilderberg group.

That mysterious cabal of the power-elite has met every year since 1954, almost never in the same place twice, and usually only once every four years in North America. That pattern was broken when they met for the second time at a Marriott hotel in Chantilly, Virginia, with just a year in between a meeting held in Canada. Coincidentally enough, they met at the same hotel again this year, another election year, just outside of Washington DC.

In the run-up to the 2008 Presidential elections, Hillary Clinton was running neck-and-neck with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, when the two of them suddenly disappeared from public view and dumped the press in order to hold a secret meeting. Some believed that they might have met at her house in Washington, but that was later proven false. Although their whereabouts were never proven, or admitted to, it is widely believed that the two met in secret with the Bilderberg group, and many also believe that it was decided at that meeting that Barack Obama would become the next President of the United States.

US Court Rules Paying Cash is Probable Cause for Detainment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ~Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution

The dispute in this case stems from a suit filed by motorists who were detained after paying with cash on Florida toll highways. While the details may leave one with the impression that this is "no big deal," it is important to understand that this ruling by the US Court of Appeals has far-reaching implications and virtually nullifies the 4th Amendment.

This lawsuit, filed last year by a family of motorists and on behalf of all freedom-loving motorists, claimed that they were effectively held hostage by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and private contractor Fanueil, Inc. after paying their toll in cash. According to FDOT policy in place at the time, motorists were randomly detained for paying in "large denomination bill" as small as $5. Toll collectors would not let the motorist proceed until a "Bill Detection Report"  was completed, recording information about the vehicle and personal information from the motorist's Driver License.

Some have claimed that this detainment policy was actually a harassment technique, in order to punish drivers who refused to purchase the SunPass transponder. The device is used to collect tolls digitally, through a bank account linked to the device.

The benefit of these devices, which are in use by states nationwide, is an ease in congestion at toll-booth choke-points. The driver only has to slow down, rather than stop and complete a transaction manually, as they pass through the toll plaza. These systems are also thought to save the driver money, with a discounted rate on tolls. That is not always the case though. as erroneous ticketing and other glitches can actually leave the motorist paying significantly more.

The more prevalent drawback, for anyone who values their privacy, is that the government and private companies alike are compiling a profile of your personal driving habits. How that data is used, and who it can be shared with, is not exactly clear. It has become an urban myth that states are issuing speeding tickets by simply calculating the time between toll booths and sending you a ticket in the mail, but that data is recorded nonetheless, meaning that they could do this even if they aren't yet. Taking it a step further, it is not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps a private company running a toll road might not share that data, with say, your insurance company.

We do know that this information has been turned over to courts in non-criminal matters, such as divorce proceedings and other civil lawsuits. That is not speculative. This means that this data may be used against you, by someone who is suing you, aside from any criminal implications or traffic infractions. Attempting to protect one's privacy by refusing the digital device and paying cash instead, was made moot by these "Bill Detection Reports" which documented at least as much, if not more information about the vehicle and driver passing through the checkpoint.

Then again, you might just be a driver from out of state, who has little choice but to pay in cash. Of course, out of state drivers are also of keen interest to law-enforcement and agencies like Homeland Security. (Video) Suffice to say, there could be any number of reasonable reasons why a motorist might be paying cash at a toll booth, other than being a terrorist..

Is The E-ZPass Box A Trojan Horse For Privacy Invasions?

CBS 2 Investigates: Living Through An E-ZPass Nightmare

Nonetheless, none of those reasons are suffice to protect your 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure, according to Wednesday's ruling.

"The fact that a person is not free to leave on his own terms at a given moment, however, does not, by itself, mean that the person has been 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment," the court wrote in its unsigned decision. 

Wait, WHAT?! 

As it pertains to persons, rather than property, lawyers.com defines "seize" as follows:

 "to detain (a person) in such circumstances as would lead a reasonable person to believe that he or she was not free to leave"

These motorists were blockaded from proceeding, even after they had paid their toll. They were not free to leave. There was no sign when entering the toll road, warning them that they might be detained for reasons other than paying a toll, and thereby invoking an implied consent, by proceeding onto the tollway. Nor was their a policy sign stating that any denomination of US currency was not an acceptable form of payment. Indeed, the toll-takers did accept the bills, but only while detaining the motorist and demanding personal information.

It is important too to keep in mind, that these toll agents are not sworn police officers, but employees of a private company. Nor is any crime alleged, which might trigger a lawful state of arrest. Without an allegation that a crime has been committed, or a court order, there is no lawful basis by which to detain any person. It seems clear, that the FDOT, the private company, and the individual toll-takers themselves might actually be guilty of a crime, namely False Imprisonment, as defined in Statute 787.02 of the Florida Penal Code.

The term “false imprisonment” means forcibly, by threat, or secretly confining, abducting, imprisoning, or restraining another person without lawful authority and against her or his will. A person who commits the offense of false imprisonment is guilty of a felony of the third degree

By keeping the gate down, they did use force directly, and with threat of force from police should they proceed, in order to imprison and/or detain those motorists against their will. Is any private agent now a "lawful authority" qualified to detain another person for any reason, so long as it is a matter of "regulation?" According to this decision, the answer is now yes. It can now be written into public codes, that you do not have Constitutional rights.

"In Florida, a person's right and liberty to use a highway is not absolute; it may be regulated in the public interest through reasonable and reasonably executed regulations," the ruling of the panel continued.

In other words, you have no Constitutional rights when you "choose" to drive on a highway. So long as it is in the public interest, or seen to be in the public interest, regulations supersede your Constitutional liberty. Not only can your rights be written off by some public code that you never heard of before, but that code can also be enforced randomly, at the personal discrimination of the agents enforcing said codes.

The "Bill Detection Report" was not filed for all cash-paying motorists, or even for all motorists paying in specific denominations such as $100's or $50's. Instead, these toll-takers had free-reign to discriminate against any motorist they chose who did not use a digital payment device, and to detain them against their will, for an indeterminate amount of time, ostensibly to fill out this report.

Detaining these motorists really is the critical factor here too. It's not as if the toll-agent was simply reviewing a videotape, to record the vehicle information and license-plate details on travelers who had paid the toll in cash. The agent physically detained these motorists, and demanded personal information from them, in order to fill out the report, before they were allowed to proceed. The concept of "probable cause" has been reduced to something as trivial and non-criminal as paying a debt/fee with cash. A presumption of guilt as these agents hold motorists against their will while seizing personal information without a warrant.

"The Chandlers (Plaintiff's) have not alleged that they were forced to pay their tolls with large-denomination bills, thereby subjecting themselves to whatever delay was caused by completion of the Bill Detection Report," the court ruled. "They chose to pay their toll with large-denomination bills. Nor have they alleged that they asked to withdraw the large report-triggering bill in favor of a smaller delay-free bill and were denied that opportunity." 

Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse. The judge's seem to be collectively ignoring the gorilla in the room to focus on semantics. What difference does it make what denomination the Chandler's paid with?! It's not as if they were paying with a check that needed to be verified by a bank, and it's not as if there was any allegation the cash might be counterfeit. By what right does one private citizen (privately contracted toll-taker) have the right to detain another private citizen (motorist) simply because of the denomination of the cash in their pocket? If such a right cannot be specified, then this case should have absolutely been decided in favor of the motorists.

The Constitution specifies nothing about cash denominations or the authority of a toll-taker. It makes no difference whatsoever whether or not the Chandlers were "forced" to pay their tolls in large denomination bills. In fact, the 4th Amendment specifies that this right "shall not be violated" and then lists the only very specific exceptions. No public code or ongoing private enterprise is listed there among the causes for a search and seizure of any kind, much less imprisoning another citizen, however briefly. Even if the toll-collector themselves were required to make documentation of a cash payment, there is still no right prescribed by which to detain a person while they perform that task.

Furthermore, there is no "bargaining clause" in the Constitution by which the Chandlers might have been obligated to bargain for their freedom by offering to pay with a lower denomination. Nor were they informed what denominations would trigger such a "delay" as the judges term it. In fact, as we have already seen, the trigger was not even the bill itself, but rather the personal discretion of the toll-collector or some other unspecified arbitrary directive. Paying with cash was not in fact the trigger, as many motorists, even paying with large bills, were not detained.  The onus is not on the plaintiff to specify why they were detained, only to show that they were in fact seized and interrogate, without a warrant or probable cause specific to their person(s).

Let us imagine for a moment, that you pump $10 worth of gas into your car on your way to work, and you go into the gas station to pay the attendant with a $20 bill. Now imagine for a moment that the clerk says "Sorry, I can't let you back out of the store until I fill out this form. You will also have to provide me with your personal information so that I can include it on the form. You are not free to leave until you comply, and the form is completed." He then proceeds to roll down the security gate, barring you from leaving. You then stand there waiting for another ten minutes while the clerk wrestles around the back room trying to find the box of forms. You watch as other customers, also paying with $20 bills come and go. Finally, after submitting your private info and the clerk takes his own sweet time filling out the form, you are released to go and explain to your own boss why you are late for your shift. Does this sound reasonable? Certainly not. Yet this is what has just been made "legal" and justified by this ludicrous decision.

Worse, it also means that from now on, probable cause is no longer based upon you specifically as a citizen, but as a blanket which can be applied arbitrarily, any place, any time, and for any reason. Probable cause does not even require the allegation of a crime anymore. For all intents and purposes, with this ruling, there is nothing stopping a state from writing a law that says police no longer need a warrant to come into your home if you use cash, or for any other non-criminal reason. Or even a private security guard for that matter. A town could pass a law which says that a store employee can hold you in their store, for as long as they want, while filling out some form or another. Or perhaps can even come into your home without a warrant, to document its contents in order to check against their own inventory of recently stolen goods perhaps. What is to stop a mall security guard from holding you in the security office, after a store clerk reports that you paid for your lunch with a $100 bill?

Now these examples may sound ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than this ruling is, because this is effectively what these judges have decided. That the 4th Amendment no longer applies to anyone unless it serves the public interest and does not violate any other code.

PDF file of the court's decision

This is not the only assault against the 4th Amendment either, in Florida specifically, revealing a pattern of efforts to eviscerate this portion of our Constitution. Read under the "Constitutionality" argument in this article:

Why Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients is a Bad Idea 

You might also like to read:

Arbitrary Arrests and the Rule of Law

America is dead, long live America.


Six Underground (Music Video)

Bonus round:


Current Population Clock

U.S.  -  314,435,124 

World  - 7,041,124,447 

06:38 UTC (EST+5) Sep 23, 2012

 US Census Bureau

Latest Headlines

Which Mythical Creature Are You?                         Sexy Out of This World Aliens                         Is That a Ghost or Just a Dirty Lens                         Can You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse?                          Do You Know Vampires?                          Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse                          Ten Amazing Urban Legends That Are Actually True                          Unbelievable UFO Sightings                          Is Your Dealer a Cop?

Search This Blog