Techniques for Dilution, Misdirection and Control of an Internet Forum

1. Techniques for dilution, misdirection andcontrol of an internet forum

2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

4. How to Spot a Spy (CointelproAgent)

5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..

There are several techniques for the control andmanipulation of a internetforum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique anddemonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventuallyand effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolledforum.'

Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'

If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has beenposted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forumsliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietlyprepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon atwill to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fakeaccounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is notexposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical postout of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both realand fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postingswith a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to thetop 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 tocensor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unusefulpostings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forumreading unrelated and non-issue items.


A second highly effective technique (which you can see inoperation all the time at is 'consensus cracking.' Todevelop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise ofa fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards thetruth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISEwithout substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then underalternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favouris slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that bothsides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine whichside is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' ordisinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.'Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, andif their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be mostlikely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highlyeducated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linkedpostings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forumslide.'

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it isalso very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productiveissues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' Byimplementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectivelystopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradualdilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching andsimply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easilymisdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The lessinformed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entiregroup in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must bestressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levelsof 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 triggercensorship by a forum moderator.


Information collection is also a very effective method todetermine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gatherintelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light andpositive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. Fromthe number of replies and the answers that are provided much statisticalinformation can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favouriteweapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what theyhave. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentageof the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used byposing as one of the form members and posting your favourite'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the grouputilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from theiractivities.

Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'

Statistically, there is always apercentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order todetermine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strongpsychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can beeffectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcementtracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depictinga local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocentindividual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America thereis always one or two being caught abusing therepowers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gatheringpurposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This methodis extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be madeto look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your ownposting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not carewhat the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fearit may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplinedviolent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions.This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.


It is important to also be harvesting and continuallymaneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, theforum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the foruminto complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participatedwith 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 aforum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and oraccidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quicklykilled. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can beconverted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirectnewcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for youragenda purposes.


Remember these techniques are only effective if the forumparticipants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniquesthe operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. Atthis point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and takenoffline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agenciesunable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resistattempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized anddeveloped by the individual and as you develop further techniques ofinfiltration and control it is imperative to share thenwith HQ.


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending onsituation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of thetraditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules aregenerally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, orplanning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speakno evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you area public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, andyou never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing keyissues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic asbeing critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also knownas the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues bydescribing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors andwild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may workas well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, becausethe only way the public can learn of the facts arethrough such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with theInternet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids onthe Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of youropponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look goodand the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely implyexists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponentarguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunkall the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussionof the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. Thisis also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methodsqualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titlessuch 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 offear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack ofyour opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answercan be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well inInternet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of newidentities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning --simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and neveranswering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent'sviewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which couldbe taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda orother bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on thedefensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associateyourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't sowithout discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument isoffered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility,make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, orsupport a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivativeof 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 dealtwith - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easilycontained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw manissue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans.Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usuallythen be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being arehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where theopponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using aminor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' withcandor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponentshave seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and implygreater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on yourbehalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because youhave already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathyand respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes withoutaddressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overallumbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players andevents, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes thoseotherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly withouthaving to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of theissues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiringopponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best withissues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requirescreative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions inplace.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, itis not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one ofthe other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion withabrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, moremanageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue'with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoiddiscussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If youcan't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them intoemotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overlymotivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not onlywill you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if theiremotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues bythen focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. Thisis perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material maybe presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant anddemand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, butnot be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safelydestroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoiddiscussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and becritical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses areacceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or otherauthorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new factsor clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations --as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This worksbest when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and thefacts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or otherempowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit andeffectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Onceconvened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properlyhandled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure aGrand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed andunavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved,the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique isapplied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain chargeswhen seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s),group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existingones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or socialresearch or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you mustactually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seemto be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted mediacoverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (ortreat 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 sothat the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by theirdeath, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character byrelease 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 otherwiseoverly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid theissues, vacate the kitchen.


Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on orprovide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references orcredentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtuallyeverything about their presentation implies their authority and expertknowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponentscarefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentatorssupportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who areknown to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentativewith any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhatcoincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record ofparticipation 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 withthe reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory andcomplementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in anypublic forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchangesof this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the playerswill infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or othertactics 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 wasnot killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracytheorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusingon conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools ofeveryone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have anulterior 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 persisteven in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance.This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter howcondemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involvedor reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist isthat emotions can seem artificial.

Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, willexpress their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfotypes usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold withrespect to pretended emotions and their usually more calmor unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seemunable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium asthey might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You mighthave outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more angerlater -- an emotional yo-yo.

With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticismwill deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue theirold disinfo patterns without any adjustments tocriticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a morerational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improvetheir communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakeswhich betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowingtheir topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so tospeak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictoryinformation which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one suchplayer 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. Anotherclaimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimedfirst-hand knowledge of it.

8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to NewsGroups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen towork, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in acover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth canresult in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players canafford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do somedamage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSEIS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towardstruth.

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 teamdiscussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'getpermission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seenthat bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - theteam approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seekeror their comments are considered more important with respect to potential toreveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will beattacked twice for the same sin.


How to Spot a Spy (CointelproAgent)

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them tobe 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 anygroup and they have phoney activist organizationsestablished.

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

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

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltratedis irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large whichbrings 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 quittingsuch a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

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

"You're dividing the movement."

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

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlledby guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developedmask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declareddedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize theactivist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convincedthat somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicatedperson tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody woulddissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how faragents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantlymake excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to thecause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull thewool 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. Hisor her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentionsincrease as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruisticdeclarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of theactivist.

This is "malignant pseudoidentification."It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates acertain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thusincreasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent willsimulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts aremost vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentificationespecially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matterrelating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's generalempathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist'sself-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge orvalue to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affectsand mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring andfeelings of "twinship". It is not unheardof for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of agood agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, evenillegal 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 theagent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissisticinvestments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activistknows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project thatonto the agent who is "mirroring" them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agentshares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/socialmovement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a visthe establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychicsplitting so that "twinship alliances"between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testingunavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch withreality."

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [donot have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] andconsciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be"helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedinglyvulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expressionof quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing,fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strongsense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissisticinvestment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent's expresssion of suchsimulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult todistinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

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

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Secondevent will occur: The agent will recompensate muchtoo quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist withthe impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," andthe imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quicklyto another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste oftime.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He orshe 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 groupmembers.


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 rootssupport

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. Theagent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or otheramusement to slow down the activist's work.


1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up fora fall in order to stop the movement.

2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get theactivists 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. Activisimought to always be non-violent.

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


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 toattend.

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


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

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


ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

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

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, gettingclose to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them(via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement andgive false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegalsubstances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant falseinformation and set up "exposure," they will send incriminatingletters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whateversociety will allow.

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

If an agent is "exposed," he or she will betransferred or replaced.

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

The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: Toexpose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals whothe FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "NationalSecurity" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out thevicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.


Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activitycan bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-baseddefense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniquesdepends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token oppositionparty.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, itdidn't happen.

2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dareyou?" gambit.

3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, betteryet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public isstill able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through"rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must bebecause they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspectsof 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 allthe charges, real and fanciful alike.

5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracytheorist," "nutcase," "ranter,""kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumormonger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives whencharacterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable"government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and opendebate 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 bysuggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but aresimply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (comparedto over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the shamopposition can be very useful.

8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confessionand avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way,you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only torelatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem oftenrequires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the oneoriginally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position needonly be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and thetruth as ultimately unknowable.

11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with avengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence isirrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. Ifevidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, theywould 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 leakerand 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 creatingand/or publicizing distractions.

14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then makenothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run"reporting.

15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this isto attribute the "facts" furnished the public to aplausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your ownstooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job isto pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to payrich people for the job who will pretend to spend theirown money.

17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer tothe question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour uponhour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press andharassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough inall the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusingto print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping themfrom radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.