Deprecated: Function set_magic_quotes_runtime() is deprecated in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/boot/bundle.php on line 15

Strict Standards: Redefining already defined constructor for class Object in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/boot/class.object.php on line 25

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.manager.php on line 53

Strict Standards: Declaration of EventManager::create() should be compatible with & Manager::create($name, $owner = NULL, $param = Array, $slient = false) in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.eventmanager.php on line 220

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.datasourcemanager.php on line 202

Strict Standards: Declaration of DatasourceManager::create() should be compatible with & Manager::create($name, $owner = NULL, $param = Array, $slient = false) in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.datasourcemanager.php on line 208

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.textformattermanager.php on line 126

Strict Standards: Declaration of TextformatterManager::create() should be compatible with & Manager::create($name, $owner = NULL, $param = Array, $slient = false) in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.textformattermanager.php on line 132

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.campfiremanager.php on line 258

Strict Standards: Declaration of CampfireManager::about() should be compatible with Manager::about($name, $owner = NULL, $path = NULL) in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.campfiremanager.php on line 366

Strict Standards: Declaration of CampfireManager::__getClassName() should be compatible with Manager::__getClassName($name, $owner = NULL) in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.campfiremanager.php on line 366

Strict Standards: Declaration of CampfireManager::__getClassPath() should be compatible with Manager::__getClassPath($name, $owner = NULL) in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.campfiremanager.php on line 366

Strict Standards: Declaration of CampfireManager::__getDriverPath() should be compatible with Manager::__getDriverPath($name, $owner = NULL) in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.campfiremanager.php on line 366

Strict Standards: Declaration of CampfireManager::create() should be compatible with & Manager::create($name, $owner = NULL, $param = Array, $slient = false) in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.campfiremanager.php on line 366

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/ on line 55

Strict Standards: Non-static method General::array_remove_duplicates() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/ on line 494

Strict Standards: Non-static method General::array_remove_duplicates() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/ on line 433

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/toolkit/class.entrymanager.php on line 389

Strict Standards: Non-static method Lang::createHandle() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/toolkit/class.entrymanager.php on line 696

Strict Standards: Non-static method General::limitWords() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.lang.php on line 47

Strict Standards: Non-static method Lang::createHandle() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home1/gatecree/public_html/workspace/data-sources/data.rss.php on line 102

Strict Standards: Non-static method General::limitWords() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.lang.php on line 47

Strict Standards: Non-static method General::repeatStr() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home1/gatecree/public_html/symphony/lib/core/class.xmlelement.php on line 95
Gatecreepers Gatecreepers Feed en-us Symphony 1.5 > Propaganda Techniques [Infowarrior Resource Part 5] Sun, 23 Sep 2007 03:06:00 GMT <p>Original link: <a href="">[1]</a></p> <p><b>PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES</b></p> <p>"Propaganda Techniques" is based upon "Appendix I: PSYOP Techniques" from "Psychological Operations Field Manual No.33-1" published by Headquarters; Department of the Army, in Washington DC, on 31 August 1979 <i>(from <a href=""></a>)</i></p> <p><b>Contents:</b></p> <ul> <li><a href="#1.1"> Appeal to Authority</a></li> <li><a href="#1.2"> Assertion</a></li> <li><a href="#1.3"> Bandwagon and Inevitable Victory</a></li> <li><a href="#1.4"> Obtain Disapproval</a></li> <li><a href="#1.5"> Glittering Generalities</a></li> <li><a href="#1.6"> Vagueness</a></li> <li><a href="#1.7"> Rationalization</a></li> <li><a href="#1.8"> Simplification</a></li> <li><a href="#1.9"> Transfer</a></li> <li><a href="#1.10"> Least of Evils</a></li> <li><a href="#1.11"> Name Calling or Substitutions of Names or Moral Labels</a></li> <li><a href="#1.12"> Pinpointing the Enemy</a></li> <li><a href="#1.13"> Plain Folks or Common Man</a></li> <li><a href="#1.14"> Social Disapproval</a></li> <li><a href="#1.15"> Virtue Words</a></li> <li><a href="#1.16"> Slogans</a></li> <li><a href="#1.17"> Testimonials</a></li> <li><a href="#1.17.1"> Official Sanction</a></li> <li><a href="#1.17.2"> Personal Sources of Testimonial Authority</a></li> <li><a href="#1.17.3"> Nonpersonal Sources of Testimonial Authority</a></li> <li><a href="#1.17.4"> Factors To Be Considered</a></li> <li><a href="#2.1"> Incredible truths</a></li> <li><a href="#2.2"> A double-cutting edge</a></li> <li><a href="#2.3"> Insinuation</a></li> <li><a href="#2.4"> Card stacking or selective omission</a></li> <li><a href="#2.5"> Presenting the other side</a></li> <li><a href="#2.6"> Lying and distortion</a></li> <li><a href="#2.7"> Simplification</a></li> <li><a href="#3.1"> Change of Pace</a></li> <li><a href="#3.2"> Stalling</a></li> <li><a href="#3.3"> Shift of Scene</a></li> <li><a href="#3.4"> Repetition</a></li> <li><a href="#3.5"> Fear of change</a></li> <li><a href="#3.6"> Terrorism</a></li> <li><a href="#3.7"> In third countries</a></li> <li><a href="#3.8"> Friendly territory</a></li> </ul> <p>Knowledge of propaganda techniques is necessary to improve one's own propaganda and to uncover enemy PSYOP stratagems. Techniques, however, are not substitutes for the procedures in PSYOP planning, development, or dissemination.</p> <p><b>Techniques may be categorized as:</b></p> <p><b><a href="#1">Characteristics of the content self-evident.</a></b> additional information is required to recognize the characteristics of this type of propaganda. "Name calling" and the use of slogans are techniques of this nature.</p> <p><b><a href="#2">Additional information required to be recognized.</a></b> Additional information is required by the target or analyst for the use of this technique to be recognized. "Lying" is an example of this technique. The audience or analyst must have additional information in order to know whether a lie is being told.</p> <p><b><a href="#3">Evident only after extended output.</a></b> "Change of pace" is an example of this technique. Neither the audience nor the analyst can know that a change of pace has taken place until various amounts of propaganda have been brought into focus.</p> <p><b>Nature of the arguments used.</b> An argument is a reason, or a series of reasons, offered as to why the audience should behave, believe, or think in a certain manner. An argument is expressed or implied.</p> <p><b>Inferred intent of the originator.</b> This technique refers to the effect the propagandist wishes to achieve on the target audience. "Divisive" and "unifying" propaganda fall within this technique. It might also be classified on the basis of the effect it has on an audience.</p> <p><b><a name="1">SELF-EVIDENT TECHNIQUE</a></b></p> <p><b><a name="1.1">Appeal to Authority.</a></b> Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action.</p> <p><b><a name="1.2">Assertion.</a></b> Assertions are positive statements presented as fact. They imply that what is stated is self-evident and needs no further proof. Assertions may or may not be true.</p> <p><b><a name="1.3">Bandwagon and Inevitable Victory.</a></b> Bandwagon-and-inevitable-victory appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to take a course of action "everyone else is taking." "Join the crowd." This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their interest to join. "Inevitable victory" invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already, or partially, on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is the best course of action.</p> <p><b><a name="1.4">Obtain Disapproval.</a></b> This technique is used to get the audience to disapprove an action or idea by suggesting the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus, if a group which supports a policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people also support it, the members of the group might decide to change their position.</p> <p><b><a name="1.5">Glittering Generalities.</a></b> Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous."</p> <p>Generalities may gain or lose effectiveness with changes in conditions. They must, therefore, be responsive to current conditions. Phrases which called up pleasant associations at one time may evoke unpleasant or unfavorable connotations at another, particularly if their frame of reference has been altered.</p> <p><b><a name="1.6">Vagueness.</a></b> Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application.</p> <p><b><a name="1.7">Rationalization.</a></b> Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs.</p> <p><b><a name="1.8">Simplification.</a></b> Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.</p> <p><b><a name="1.9">Transfer.</a></b> This is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. This technique is generally used to transfer blame from one member of a conflict to another. It evokes an emotional response which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities.</p> <p><b><a name="1.10">Least of Evils.</a></b> This is a technique of acknowledging that the course of action being taken is perhaps undesirable but that any alternative would result in an outcome far worse. This technique is generally used to explain the need for sacrifices or to justify the seemingly harsh actions that displease the target audience or restrict personal liberties. Projecting blame on the enemy for the unpleasant or restrictive conditions is usually coupled with this technique.</p> <p><b><a name="1.11">Name Calling or Substitutions of Names or Moral Labels.</a></b> This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable.</p> <ul> <li>Types of name calling: <ul><li>Direct name calling is used when the audience is sympathetic or neutral. It is a simple, straightforward attack on an opponent or opposing idea.</li> <li>Indirect name calling is used when direct name calling would antagonize the audience. It is a label for the degree of attack between direct name calling and insinuation. Sarcasm and ridicule are employed with this technique.</li> <li>Cartoons, illustrations, and photographs are used in name calling, often with deadly effect.</li></ul></li> <li>Dangers inherent in name calling: In its extreme form, name calling may indicate that the propagandist has lost his sense of proportion or is unable to conduct a positive campaign. Before using this technique, the propagandist must weigh the benefits against the possible harmful results. It is best to avoid use of this device. The obstacles are formidable, based primarily on the human tendency to close ranks against a stranger. For example, a group may despise, dislike, or even hate one of its leaders, even openly criticize him, but may (and probably will) resent any non group member who criticizes and makes disparaging remarks against that leader.</li> </ul> <p><b><a name="1.12">Pinpointing the Enemy:</a></b> This is a form of simplification in which a complex situation is reduced to the point where the "enemy" is unequivocally identified. For example, the president of country X is forced to declare a state of emergency in order to protect the peaceful people of his country from the brutal, unprovoked aggression by the leaders of country Y.</p> <p><b><a name="1.13">Plain Folks or Common Man:</a></b> The "plain folks" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothes in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person. With the plain folks device, the propagandist can win the confidence of persons who resent or distrust foreign sounding, intellectual speech, words, or mannerisms. The audience can be persuaded to identify its interests with those of the propagandist:</p> <ul><li>Presenting soldiers as plain folks. The propagandist wants to make the enemy feel he is fighting against soldiers who are "decent, everyday folks" much like himself; this helps to counter themes that paint the opponent as a "bloodthirsty" killer.</li> <li>Presenting civilians as plain folks. The "plain folks" or "common man" device also can help to convince the enemy that the opposing nation is not composed of arrogant, immoral, deceitful, aggressive, warmongering people, but of people like himself, wishing to live at peace.</li> <li>Humanizing leaders. This technique paints a more human portrait of US and friendly military and civilian leaders. It humanizes them so that the audience looks upon them as similar human beings or, preferably, as kind, wise, fatherly figures.</li></ul> <p><b>Categories of Plain Folk Devices:</b></p> <ul><li>Vernacular. This is the contemporary language of a specific region or people as it is commonly spoken or written and includes songs, idioms, and jokes. The current vernacular of the specific target audience must be used.</li> <li> Dialect. Dialect is a variation in pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary from the norm of a region or nation. When used by the propagandist, perfection is required. This technique is best left to those to whom the dialect is native, because native level speakers are generally the best users of dialects in propaganda appeals.</li> <li> Errors. Scholastic pronunciation, enunciation, and delivery give the impression of being artificial. To give the impression of spontaneity, deliberately hesitate between phrases, stammer, or mispronounce words. When not overdone, the effect is one of deep sincerity. Errors in written material may be made only when they are commonly made by members of the reading audience. Generally, errors should be restricted to colloquialisms.</li> <li> Homey words. Homey words are forms of "virtue words" used in the everyday life of the average man. These words are familiar ones, such as "home," "family," "children," "farm," "neighbors," or cultural equivalents. They evoke a favorable emotional response and help transfer the sympathies of the audience to the propagandist. Homey words are widely used to evoke nostalgia. Care must be taken to assure that homey messages addressed to enemy troops do not also have the same effect on US/friendly forces.</li></ul> <p>If the propaganda or the propagandist lacks naturalness, there may be an adverse backlash. The audience may resent what it considers attempts to mock it, its language, and its ways.</p> <p><b><a name="1.14">Social Disapproval.</a></b> This is a technique by which the propagandist marshals group acceptance and suggests that attitudes or actions contrary to the one outlined will result in social rejection, disapproval, or outright ostracism. The latter, ostracism, is a control practice widely used within peer groups and traditional societies.</p> <p><b><a name="1.15">Virtue Words.</a></b> These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, etc., are virtue words.</p> <p><b><a name="1.16">Slogans.</a></b> A slogan is a brief striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. If ideas can be sloganized, they should be, as good slogans are self-perpetuating.</p> <p><b><a name="1.17">Testimonials.</a></b> Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority's opinions and beliefs as its own. Several types of testimonials are:</p> <p><b><a name="1.17.1">Official Sanction.</a></b> The testimonial authority must have given the endorsement or be clearly on record as having approved the attributed idea, concept, action, or belief. Four factors are involved:</p> <ul><li>Accomplishment. People have confidence in an authority who has demonstrated outstanding ability and proficiency in his field. This accomplishment should be related to the subject of the testimonial.</li> <li>Identification with the target. People have greater confidence in an authority with whom they have a common bond. For example, the soldier more readily trusts an officer with whom he has undergone similar arduous experiences than a civilian authority on military subjects.</li> <li>Position of authority. The official position of authority may instill confidence in the testimony; i.e., head of state, division commander, etc.</li> <li>Inanimate objects. Inanimate objects may be used in the testimonial device. In such cases, the propagandist seeks to transfer physical attributes of an inanimate object to the message. The Rock of Gibraltar, for example, is a type of inanimate object associated with steadfast strength.</li></ul> <p><b><a name="1.17.2">Personal Sources of Testimonial Authority:</a></b></p> <ul><li>Enemy leaders. The enemy target audience will generally place great value on its high level military leaders as a source of information.</li> <li>Fellow soldiers. Because of their common experiences, soldiers form a bond of comradeship. As a result, those in the armed forces are inclined to pay close attention to what other soldiers have to say.</li> <li>Opposing leaders. Testimonials of leaders of the opposing nation are of particular value in messages that outline war aims and objectives for administering the enemy nation after it capitulates.</li> <li>Famous scholars, writers, and other personalities. Frequently, statements of civilians known to the target as authoritative or famous scholars, writers, scientists, commentators, etc., can be effectively used in propaganda messages.</li></ul> <p><b><a name="1.17.3">Nonpersonal Sources of Testimonial Authority:</a></b></p> <p>Institutions, ideologies, national flags, religious, and other nonpersonal sources are often used. The creeds, beliefs, principles, or dogmas of respected authorities or other public figures may make effective propaganda testimonials.</p> <p><b><a name="1.17.4">Factors To Be Considered:</a></b></p> <ul><li>Plausibility. The testimonial must be plausible to the target audience. The esteem in which an authority is held by the target audience will not always transfer an implausible testimonial into effective propaganda.</li> <li>False testimonials. Never use false testimonials. Highly selective testimonials? Yes. Lies (fabrications)? Never. Fabricated (false) testimonials are extremely vulnerable because their lack of authenticity makes them easy to challenge and discredit.</li></ul> <p><b><a name="2">PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES WHICH ARE BASED ON CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONTENT BUT WHICH REQUIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE PART OF AN ANALYST TO BE RECOGNIZED</a></b></p> <p><b><a name="2.1">Incredible truths.</a></b> There are times when the unbelievable (incredible) truth not only can but should be used. Among these occasions are:</p> <ul><li>When the psychological operator is certain that a vitally important event will take place.</li> <li>A catastrophic event, or one of significant tactical or strategic importance, unfavorable to the enemy has occurred and the news has been hidden from the enemy public or troops.</li> <li>The enemy government has denied or glossed over an event detrimental to its cause.</li></ul> <p><b><a name="2.2">A double-cutting edge.</a></b> This technique has a double-cutting edge: It increases the credibility of the US/friendly psychological operator while decreasing the credibility of the enemy to the enemy's target audience. Advanced security clearance must be obtained before using this technique so that operations or projects will not be jeopardized or compromised. Actually, propagandists using this technique will normally require access to special compartmented information and facilities to avoid compromise of other sensitive operations or projects of agencies of the US Government.</p> <p>Though such news will be incredible to the enemy public, it should be given full play by the psychological operator. This event and its significance will eventually become known to the enemy public in spite of government efforts to hide it. The public will recall (the psychological operator will "help" the recall process) that the incredible news was received from US/allied sources. They will also recall the deception of their government. The prime requirement in using this technique is that the disseminated incredible truth must be or be certain to become a reality.</p> <p><b><a name="2.3">Insinuation.</a></b> Insinuation is used to create or stir up the suspicions of the target audience against ideas, groups, or individuals in order to divide an enemy. The propagandist hints, suggests, and implies, allowing the audience to draw its own conclusions. Latent suspicions and cleavages within the enemy camp are exploited in an attempt to structure them into active expressions of disunity which weaken the enemy's war effort.</p> <ul><li><b>Exploitable vulnerabilities.</b> Potential cleavages which may be exploited include the following: <ul><li> - Political differences between the enemy nation and its allies or satellites.</li> <li> Ethnic and regional differences.</li> <li> Religious, political, economic, or social differences.</li> <li> History of civilian animosity or unfair treatment toward enemy soldiers.</li> <li> Comforts available to rear area soldiers and not available to combat soldiers.</li> <li> People versus the bureaucracy or hierarchy.</li> <li> Political differences between the ruling elite, between coalitions members, or between rulers and those out of power.</li> <li> Differences showing a few benefiting at the expense of the general populace.</li> <li> Unequal or inequitable tax burdens, or the high level of taxes. The audience should be informed of hidden taxes.</li> <li> The scarcity of consumer goods for the general public and their availability to the various elites and the dishonest.</li> <li> Costs of present government policies in terms of lost opportunities to accomplish constructive socially desirable goals.</li> <li> The powerlessness of the individual. (This may be used to split the audience from the policies of its government by disassociating its members from those policies.) This technique could be used in preparing a campaign to gain opposition to those government policies.</li></ul></li> <li><b>Insinuation devices.</b> A number of devices are available to exploit these and similar vulnerabilities: <ul><li> Leading questions: The propagandist may ask questions which suggest only one possible answer. Thus, the question, "What is there to do now that your unit is surrounded and you are completely cut off?" insinuates that surrender or desertion is the only reasonable alternative to annihilation.</li> <li> Humor: Humor can be an effective form of insinuation. Jokes and cartoons about the enemy find a ready audience among those persons in the target country or military camp who normally reject straightforward accusations or assertions. Jokes about totalitarian leaders and their subordinates often spread with ease and rapidity. However, the psychological operator must realize that appreciation of humor differs among target groups and so keep humor within the appropriate cultural context.</li> <li> Pure motives. This technique makes it clear that the side represented by the propagandist is acting in the best interests of the target audience, insinuating that the enemy is acting to the contrary. For example, the propagandist can use the theme that a satellite force fighting on the side of the enemy is insuring the continued subjugation of its country by helping the common enemy.</li> <li> Guilt by association: Guilt by association links a person, group, or idea to other persons, groups, or ideas repugnant to the target audience. The insinuation is that the connection is not mutual, accidental, or superficial.</li> <li> Rumor: Malicious rumors are also a potentially effective form of insinuation.</li> <li> Pictorial and photographic propaganda: A photograph, picture, or cartoon can often insinuate a derogatory charge more effectively than words. The combination of words and photograph, picture, or cartoon can be far more effective. In this content, selected and composite photographs can be extremely effective.</li> <li>Vocal: Radio propagandists can artfully suggest a derogatory notion, not only with the words they use, but also by the way in which they deliver them. Significant pauses, tonal inflections, sarcastic pronunciation, ridiculing enunciation, can be more subtle than written insinuation.</li></ul></li></ul> <p><b><a name="2.4">Card stacking or selective omission.</a></b> This is the process of choosing from a variety of facts only those which support the propagandist's purpose. In using this technique, facts are selected and presented which most effectively strengthen and authenticate the point of view of the propagandist. It includes the collection of all available material pertaining to a subject and the selection of that material which most effectively supports the propaganda line. Card stacking, case making, and censorship are all forms of selection. Success or failure depends on how successful the propagandist is in selecting facts or "cards" and presenting or "stacking" them.</p> <ul><li>Increase prestige. In time of armed conflict, leading personalities, economic and social systems, and other institutions making up a nation are constantly subjected to propaganda attacks. Card stacking is used to counter these attacks by publicizing and reiterating the best qualities of the institutions, concepts, or persons being attacked. Like most propaganda techniques, card stacking is used to supplement other methods.</li> <li> The technique may also be used to describe a subject as virtuous or evil and to give simple answers to a complicated subject.</li> <li> An intelligent propagandist makes his case by imaginative selection of facts. The work of the card stacker in using selected facts is divided into two main phases: <ul><li>First, the propagandist selects only favorable facts and presents them to the target in such a manner as to obtain a desired reaction.</li> <li>Second, the propagandist uses these facts as a basis for conclusions, trying to lead the audience into accepting the conclusions by accepting the facts presented.</li></ul></li></ul> <p><b><a name="2.5">Presenting the other side.</a></b> Some persons in a target audience believe that neither belligerent is entirely virtuous. To them propaganda solely in terms of right and wrong may not be credible. Agreement with minor aspects of the enemy's point of view may overcome this cynicism. Another use of presenting the other side is to reduce the impact of propaganda that opposing propagandists are likely to be card stacking (selective omission).</p> <p><b><a name="2.6">Lying and distortion.</a></b> Lying is stating as truth that which is contrary to fact. For example, assertions may be lies. This technique will not be used by US personnel. It is presented for use of the analyst of enemy propaganda.</p> <p><b><a name="2.7">Simplification.</a></b> This is a technique in which the many facts of a situation are reduced so the right or wrong, good or evil, of an act or decision is obvious to all. This technique (simplification) provides simple solutions for complex problems. By suggesting apparently simple solutions for complex problems, this technique offers simplified interpretations of events, ideas, concepts, or personalities. Statements are positive and firm; qualifying words are never used.</p> <p>Simplification may be used to sway uneducated and educated audiences. This is true because many persons are well educated or highly skilled, trained specialists in a specific field, but the limitations of time and energy often force them to turn to and accept simplifications to understand, relate, and react to other areas of interest.</p> <p>Simplification has the following characteristics:</p> <ul><li>It thinks for others: Some people accept information which they cannot verify personally as long as the source is acceptable to them or the authority is considered expert. Others absorb whatever they read, see, or hear with little or no discrimination. Some people are too lazy or unconcerned to think problems through. Others are uneducated and willingly accept convenient simplifications.</li> <li> It is concise: Simplification gives the impression of going to the heart of the matter in a few words. The average member of the target audience will not even consider that there may be another answer to the problem.</li> <li> It builds ego: Some people are reluctant to believe that any field of endeavor, except their own, is difficult to understand. For example, a layman is pleased to hear that '"law is just common sense dressed up in fancy language," or "modern art is really a hodgepodge of aimless experiment or nonsense." Such statements reinforce the ego of the lay audience. It is what they would like to believe, because they are afraid that law and modern art may actually be beyond their understanding. Simple explanations are given for complex subjects and problems.</li></ul> <p>Stereotyping is a form of simplification used to fit persons, groups, nations, or events into ready-made categories that tend to produce a desired image of good or bad. Stereotyping puts the subject (people, nations, etc.) or event into a simplistic pattern without any distinguishing individual characteristics.</p> <p><b><a name="3">CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTENT WHICH MAY BECOME EVIDENT WHEN NUMEROUS PIECES OF OUTPUT ARE EXAMINED</a></b></p> <p><b><a name="3.1">Change of Pace.</a></b> Change of pace is a technique of switching from belligerent to peaceful output, from "hot" to "cold," from persuasion to threat, from gloomy prophecy to optimism, from emotion to fact.</p> <p><b><a name="3.2">Stalling.</a></b> Stalling is a technique of deliberately withholding information until its timeliness is past, thereby reducing the possibility of undesired impact.</p> <p><b><a name="3.3">Shift of Scene.</a></b> With this technique, the propagandist replaces one "field of battle" with another. It is an attempt to take the spotlight off an unfavorable situation or condition by shifting it to another, preferably of the opponent, so as to force the enemy to go on the defense.</p> <p><b><a name="3.4">REPETITION</a></b></p> <p>An idea or position is repeated in an attempt to elicit an almost automatic response from the audience or to reinforce an audience's opinion or attitude. This technique is extremely valid and useful because the human being is basically a creature of habit and develops skills and values by repetition (like walking, talking, code of ethics, etc.). An idea or position may be repeated many times in one message or in many messages. The intent is the same in both instances, namely, to elicit an immediate response or to reinforce an opinion or attitude.</p> <ul> <li>The audience is not familiar with the details of the threat posed. Ignorance of the details can be used to pose a threat and build fear.</li> <li>Members of the audience are self-centered.</li> <li>The target can take immediate action to execute simple, specific instructions.</li> </ul> <p><b><a name="3.5">Fear of change.</a></b> People fear change, particularly sudden, imposed change over which they have no control. They fear it will take from them status, wealth, family, friends, comfort, safety, life, or limb. That's why the man in the foxhole hesitates to leave it. He knows and is accustomed to the safety it affords. He is afraid that moving out of his foxhole will expose him to new and greater danger. That is why the psychological campaign must give him a safe, honorable way out of his predicament or situation.</p> <p><b><a name="3.6">Terrorism.</a></b> The United States is absolutely opposed to the use of terror or terror tactics. But the psychological operator can give a boomerang effect to enemy terror, making it reverberate against the practitioner, making him repugnant to his own people, and all others who see the results of his heinous savagery. This can be done by disseminating fully captioned photographs in the populated areas of the terrorist's homeland. Such leaflets will separate civilians from their armed forces; it will give them second thoughts about the decency and honorableness of their cause, make them wonder about the righteousness of their ideology, and make the terrorists repugnant to them. Follow-up leaflets can "fire the flames" of repugnancy, indignation, and doubt, as most civilizations find terror repugnant.</p> <p><b><a name="3.7">In third countries.</a></b> Fully captioned photographs depicting terroristic acts may be widely distributed in third countries (including the nation sponsoring the enemy) where they will instill a deep revulsion in the general populace. Distribution in neutral countries is particularly desirable in order to swing the weight of unbiased humanitarian opinion against the enemy.</p> <p>The enemy may try to rationalize and excuse its conduct (terroristic), but in so doing, it will compound the adverse effect of its actions, because it can never deny the validity of true photographic representations of its acts. Thus, world opinion will sway to the side of the victimized people.</p> <p><b><a name="3.8">Friendly territory.</a></b> Under no circumstances should such leaflets be distributed in friendly territory. To distribute them in the friendly area in which the terrorists' acts took place would only create feelings of insecurity. This would defeat the purpose of the psychological operator, which is to build confidence in the government or agency he represents.</p> > A List of Common Logical Fallacies in Propaganda and Debate [Infowarrior Resource Part 4] Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:55:00 GMT <p><b>A List of Common Logical Fallacies in Propaganda and Debate</b></p> <p><b>Article compiled by Gatecreepers.</b></p> <p>The majority of these descriptions are lifted from many pages across Wikipedia, and are condensed here. This page is intended as a quick and convenient reference for those who do not have the time to browse entire libraries.</p> <p><b>Contents:</b></p> <ul> <li><a href="#lapidem">Ad lapidem</a></li> <li><a href="#hominem">Ad hominem</a></li> <li><a href="#consequent">Affirming the consequent</a></li> <li><a href="#authority">Appeal to authority</a></li> <li><a href="#consequences">Appeal to consequences</a></li> <li><a href="#fear">Appeal to fear</a></li> <li><a href="#flattery">Appeal to flattery</a></li> <li><a href="#nature">Appeal to nature</a></li> <li><a href="#novelty">Appeal to novelty</a></li> <li><a href="#pity">Appeal to pity</a></li> <li><a href="#probability">Appeal to probability</a></li> <li><a href="#spite">Appeal to spite</a></li> <li><a href="#tradition">Appeal to tradition</a></li> <li><a href="#baculum">Argumentum ad baculum</a></li> <li><a href="#crumenam">Argumentum ad crumenam</a></li> <li><a href="#lazarum">Argumentum ad lazarum</a></li> <li><a href="#nauseam">Argumentum ad nauseam</a></li> <li><a href="#populum">Argumentum ad populum</a></li> <li><a href="#fromfallacy">Argument from fallacy</a></li> <li><a href="#ignorance">Argument from ignorance</a></li> <li><a href="#silence">Argument from silence</a></li> <li><a href="#Association">Association fallacy</a></li> <li><a href="#Begging">Begging the question</a></li> <li><a href="#Biased">Biased sample</a></li> <li><a href="#Bulverism">Bulverism</a></li> <li><a href="#Chronological">Chronological snobbery</a></li> <li><a href="#Circular">Circular cause and consequence</a></li> <li><a href="#hoc">Cum hoc ergo propter hoc</a></li> <li><a href="#antecedent">Denying the antecedent</a></li> <li><a href="#Etymological">Etymological fallacy</a></li> <li><a href="#singlecause">Fallacy of the single cause</a></li> <li><a href="#Falsechoice">False choice</a></li> <li><a href="#Falsedilemma">False dilemma</a></li> <li><a href="#Gambler">Gambler's fallacy</a></li> <li><a href="#Genetic">Genetic fallacy</a></li> <li><a href="#Hasty">Hasty generalization</a></li> <li><a href="#Ignoratio">Ignoratio elenchi</a></li> <li><a href="#Manyquestions">Many questions</a></li> <li><a href="#Middle">Middle ground logical fallacy</a></li> <li><a href="#Misleading">Misleading vividness</a></li> <li><a href="#Overwhelming">Overwhelming exception</a></li> <li><a href="#Package">Package deal</a></li> <li><a href="#Perfect">Perfect solution fallacy</a></li> <li><a href="#Poisoning">Poisoning the well</a></li> <li><a href="#Proof">Proof by example</a></li> <li><a href="#Quoting">Quoting out of context</a></li> <li><a href="#Slippery">Slippery slope</a></li> <li><a href="#Spotlight">Spotlight fallacy</a></li> <li><a href="#Straw">Straw man</a></li> <li><a href="#Style">Style over substance</a></li> <li><a href="#Tu">Tu quoque</a></li> <li><a href="#Wishful">Wishful thinking</a></li> <li><a href="#Wrong">Wrong direction</a></li> </ul> <p><b><a name="lapidem">Ad Lapidem</a></b></p> <p>Ad Lapidem is a logical fallacy where someone dismisses a statement as absurd without giving a reason why it is supposedly absurd.</p> <p><b><a name="hominem">Ad hominem</a></b></p> <p>An ad hominem argument, also known as <i>argumentum ad hominem</i> (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") is a logical fallacy consisting of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or <i>argumentum ad personam</i>, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.</p> <p><b><a name="consequent">Affirming the consequent</a></b></p> <p>Affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that assumes that because a hypothetical situation would bear a certain effect, that the occurrence of said effect implies that the aforementioned situation occured.</p> <p><b><a name="authority">Appeal to authority</a></b></p> <p>An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, <i>argumentum ad verecundiam</i> (Latin: argument to respect) or <i>ipse dixit</i> (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regards to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.</p> <p><b><a name="consequences">Appeal to consequences</a></b></p> <p>Appeal to consequences, also known as <i>argumentum ad consequentiam</i>, is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.</p> <p><b><a name="fear">Appeal to fear</a></b></p> <p>An appeal to fear (also called <i>argumentum ad metam</i> or <i>argumentum in terrorem</i>) is a logical fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for her or his idea by increasing fear and prejudice toward a competitor.</p> <p><b><a name="flattery">Appeal to flattery</a></b></p> <p>Appeal to flattery is a logical fallacy in which a person uses flattery, excessive compliments, in an attempt to win support for their side.</p> <p>Flattery is often used to hide the true intent of an idea or proposal. Praise offers a momentary personal distraction that can often weaken judgment. Moreover, it is usually a cunning form of appeal to consequences, since the audience is subject to be flattered as long as they comply with the flatterer.</p> <p><b><a name="nature">Appeal to nature</a></b></p> <p>Appeal to nature is a simplified type of naturalistic fallacy in argument form. An appeal to nature fallacy consists of a claim that something is good or right because it is natural, or that something is bad or wrong because it is unnatural</p> <p><b><a name="novelty">Appeal to novelty</a></b></p> <p>The appeal to novelty (also called <i>argumentum ad novitatem</i>) is a logical fallacy in which someone prematurely claims that an idea or proposal is correct or superior, exclusively because it is new and modern.</p> <p><b><a name="pity">Appeal to pity</a></b></p> <p>An appeal to pity (also called <i>argumentum ad misericordiam</i>) is a logical fallacy in which someone tries to win support for their argument or idea by exploiting their opponent's feelings of pity or guilt.</p> <p><b><a name="probability">Appeal to probability</a></b></p> <p>Appeal to probability is a logical fallacy, often used in conjunction with other fallacies. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen.</p> <p><b><a name="spite">Appeal to spite</a></b></p> <p>Appeal to spite (also called <i>argumentum ad odium</i>) is a logical fallacy in which someone attempts to win favor for an argument by exploiting existing feelings of bitterness, spite, or schadenfreude in the opposing party.</p> <p><b><a name="tradition">Appeal to tradition</a></b></p> <p>Appeal to tradition, also known as appeal to common practice or <i>argumentum ad antiquitatem</i> or false induction is a common logical fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it has a long standing tradition behind. Essentially: "This is right because we've always done it this way."</p> <p><b><a name="baculum">Argumentum ad baculum</a></b></p> <p>Argumentum ad baculum (Latin: argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick), also known as appeal to force, is an argument where force, coercion, or the threat of force, is given as a justification for a conclusion.</p> <p><b><a name="crumenam">Argumentum ad crumenam</a></b></p> <p>An argumentum ad crumenam argument, also known as an argument to the purse is a logical fallacy of concluding that a statement is correct because the speaker is rich.</p> <p><b><a name="lazarum">Argumentum ad lazarum</a></b></p> <p>Argumentum ad lazarum or appeal to poverty is the logical fallacy of thinking a conclusion is correct because the speaker is poor.</p> <p><b><a name="nauseam">Argumentum ad nauseam</a></b></p> <p>Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or <i>argumentum ad infinitum</i> is a flawed argument, whereby some statement is made repeatedly (possibly by different people) until nobody cares to refute it anymore, at which point the statement is asserted to be true because it is no longer challenged.</p> <p><b><a name="populum">Argumentum ad populum</a></b></p> <p>An argumentum ad populum, appeal to the people, in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."</p> <p><b><a name="fromfallacy">Argument from fallacy</a></b></p> <p>Also <i>argumentum ad logicam</i> - assumes that if an argument is fallacious, its conclusion must be false.</p> <p><b><a name="ignorance">Argument from ignorance</a></b></p> <p>The argument from ignorance, also known as <i>argumentum ad ignorantiam</i> or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.</p> <p><b><a name="silence">Argument from silence</a></b></p> <p>The argument from silence (also called <i>argumentum a silentio</i> in Latin) is that the silence of a speaker or writer about X proves or suggests that the speaker or writer is either ignorant of X or has a motive to remain silent about X. When used as a logical proof in pure reasoning, the argument is classed among the fallacies, but it may be valid circumstantial evidence in practical reasoning.</p> <p><b><a name="Association">Association fallacy</a></b></p> <p>An association fallacy is a type of logical fallacy which asserts that qualities of one are inherently qualities of another, merely by association.</p> <p><b><a name="Begging">Begging the question</a></b></p> <p>Begging the question in logic, also known as circular reasoning and by the Latin name <i>petitio principii</i>, is an informal fallacy found in many attempts at logical arguments. An argument which begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way.</p> <p><b><a name="Biased">Biased sample</a></b></p> <p>A biased sample is one that is falsely taken to be typical of a population from which it is drawn.</p> <p><b><a name="Bulverism">Bulverism</a></b></p> <p>Bulverism is a logical fallacy coined by C. S. Lewis where rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead assumes it wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held that argument.</p> <p><b><a name="Chronological">Chronological snobbery</a></b></p> <p>Chronological snobbery is the logical fallacy that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior when compared to that of the present.</p> <p><b><a name="Circular">Circular cause and consequence</a></b></p> <p>Circular cause and consequence is a logical fallacy where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause. This is also known as the the chicken or the egg fallacy.</p> <p><b><a name="hoc">Cum hoc ergo propter hoc</a></b></p> <p>"More children in town A have leukemia than in town B. Therefore, there must be something wrong with town A."</p> <p><b><a name="antecedent">Denying the antecedent</a></b></p> <p>Denying the antecedent, a logical fallacy that assumes that because a hypothetical situation would bear a certain effect, that the absence of the hypothesised trigger situation means that the effect earlier described did not occur.</p> <p><b><a name="Etymological">Etymological fallacy</a></b></p> <p>An etymological fallacy is a linguistical misconception based on the idea that the etymology of a word or phrase is its actual meaning.</p> <p><b><a name="singlecause">Fallacy of the single cause</a></b></p> <p>The fallacy of the single cause, also known as joint effect or causal oversimplification, is a logical fallacy of causation that occurs when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.</p> <p><b><a name="Falsechoice">False choice</a></b></p> <p>The logical fallacy of false choice is a correlative-based fallacy in which options are presented as being exclusive when they may not be. It is often used to obscure the likelihood of one option or to reframe an argument on the user's terms.</p> <p><b><a name="Falsedilemma">False dilemma</a></b></p> <p>The logical fallacy of false dilemma also known as falsified dilemma, fallacy of the excluded middle, black and white thinking, false dichotomy, false correlative, either/or fallacy and bifurcation involves a situation in which two alternative points of view are held to be the only options, when in reality there exist one or more other options which have not been considered.</p> <p><b><a name="Gambler">Gambler's fallacy</a></b></p> <p>"The roulette ball has landed on odd numbers eight times in a row. Therefore, it's more likely to land on an even number next time."</p> <p><b><a name="Genetic">Genetic fallacy</a></b></p> <p>The genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy based on the irrelevant appraisal of something based on its origin.</p> <p>It occurs when one attempts to reduce the significance of an idea, person, practice, or institution merely to an account of its origin (genesis) or earlier form. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.</p> <p><b><a name="Hasty">Hasty generalization</a></b></p> <p>Hasty generalization is the fallacy of examining just one or very few examples or studying a single case, and generalizing that to be representative of the whole class of objects or phenomena. (Hasty generalization, also known as fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, law of small numbers, unrepresentative sample or <i>secundum quid</i>, is the logical fallacy of reaching an inductive generalization based on too little evidence.)</p> <p><b><a name="Ignoratio">Ignoratio elenchi</a></b></p> <p>Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion) is the logical fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but which proves or supports a different proposition than the one it is purporting to prove or support.</p> <p><b><a name="Manyquestions">Many questions</a></b></p> <p>Many questions, also known as complex question, presupposition, loaded question, or <i>plurium interrogationum</i> (Latin, "of many questions"), is a logical fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.</p> <p><b><a name="Middle">Middle ground logical fallacy</a></b></p> <p>The middle ground logical fallacy (also called <i>argumentum ad temperantiam</i>) asserts that a compromise between two positions is correct.</p> <p><b><a name="Misleading">Misleading vividness</a></b></p> <p>The logical fallacy of misleading vividness involves describing some occurrence in vivid detail, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, to convince someone that it is a problem.</p> <p><b><a name="Overwhelming">Overwhelming exception</a></b></p> <p>The overwhelming exception is related to the hasty generalization, but working from the other end. It is a generalization which is accurate, but tags on a qualification which eliminates enough cases (as exceptions); that what remains is much less impressive than what the original statement might have led one to assume.</p> <p><b><a name="Package">Package deal</a></b></p> <p>The logical fallacy of the package deal consists of assuming that things often grouped together by tradition or culture must always be grouped that way.</p> <p><b><a name="Perfect">Perfect solution fallacy</a></b></p> <p>The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.</p> <p><b><a name="Poisoning">Poisoning the well</a></b></p> <p>Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.</p> <p><b><a name="Proof">Proof by example</a></b></p> <p>Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalisation) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.</p> <p><b><a name="Quoting">Quoting out of context</a></b></p> <p>The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as contextomy, is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.</p> <p><b><a name="Slippery">Slippery slope</a></b></p> <p>In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later.</p> <p><b><a name="Spotlight">Spotlight fallacy</a></b></p> <p>The Spotlight fallacy is committed when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media. This line of reasoning has the following form:</p> <blockquote><p>* Xs with quality Q receive a great deal of attention or coverage in the media. Therefore all Xs have quality Q.</p></blockquote> <p><b><a name="Straw">Straw man</a></b></p> <p>A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.</p> <p><b><a name="Style">Style over substance</a></b></p> <p>The style over substance fallacy occurs when one emphasises the way in which the argument is presented, while marginalising (or outright ignoring) the content of the argument.</p> <p><b><a name="Tu">Tu quoque</a></b></p> <p>Tu quoque (Latin for "You, too" or "You, also") is an argument that asserts or implies that a certain position is false and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to consistently act in accordance with that position; it attempts show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It can be considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the opposite party itself, rather than its positions.</p> <p><b><a name="Wishful">Wishful thinking</a></b></p> <p>Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality.</p> <p><b><a name="Wrong">Wrong direction</a></b></p> <p>Wrong direction is a logical fallacy of causation where cause and effect are reversed. The cause is said to be the effect and vice versa.</p> > EXCLUSIVE: Conspiracy Concepts [Infowarrior Resource Part 3] Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:46:00 GMT <p><b>Aim:</b> The aim of this article is to introduce the reader to several important concepts necessary for the understanding of criminal conspiracies. Not all concepts apply to all conspiracies.</p> <p><b>1)</b> Conspiracies are so common that they can be prosecuted in several countries; it is so ancient that it is part of English Common Law.</p> <p><b>2)</b> There is a conspiracy when two or more people associate to carry out a harmful act against another person, a group or an institution.</p> <p><b>3)</b> Conspiracies have been conducted throughout the ages. They may take the several forms:</p> <p> <ul style="font: 95%/1.5em Verdana, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 10px;'"> <li>Establishment conspiracy against the people</li> <li>Conspiracy to overthrow a legitimate government</li> <li>False Flag Operations (described later)</li> <li>Subversion of state institutions</li> <li>Economic conspiracies, through the banking system, or conspiracy to defraud</li> <li>Common people conspiracies (e.g. conspiring to have a co-worker fired)</li> </ul></p> <p><b>4)</b> The prime motive for establishment conspiracies is accumulation of power. Wealth is usually a secondary motive; it may serve as a reward for the partakers in the conspiracy who do not gain power.</p> <p><b>5)</b> It is possible to demonstrate the possibility of a conspiracy if the following elements exist: motive, means, opportunity and precedent.</p> <p><b>6)</b> Disinformation agents, pre-paid experts, journalists and scientists - psyops in general can exert a negative influence on independent investigations. These operations are only meant to target the minds of the unsuspecting. Once one becomes aware of their techniques, they are more easily sidestepped. </p> <p>Disinformation agents often pose as alternative independent researchers or 'conspiracy theorists', intent on saying or doing questionable things, so that the alternative movement they associate with can be discredited. Often, disinformation agents will appear to be legitimate researchers, gaining the trust of many before they switch sides. Other, more tame variations of disinformation agents include those qualified experts and scientists who are paid to give a pro-official opinion, whilst pretending to be independent.</p> <p><b>7)</b> Problem-Reaction-Solution: In order to offer society something, they must first have a desire for it. This desire must be created if it does not already exist. In order to offer society a solution, a problem must exist. This problem must be manufactured, if it does not already exist. When society becomes aware of the problem, they react, and their reaction causes the interested authorities to offer their ready-made solution.</p> <p><b>8)</b> LIHOP - Let It Happen On Purpose. This assumes 'interested elements' of the authorities let their guard down deliberately, in order to allow an event to occur, with intent to profit from it's aftermath.</p> <p><b>9)</b> False Flag Operations. An example: an attack or similar event is covertly carried out by group 'A'. Group 'B' find themselves incriminated, because group A used B's identities, national flag, or other identification during the attack. Thereafter, the mainstream media will help cement the 'guilt' of group B.</p> <p><b>10)</b> MIHOP - Made It Happen On Purpose. This is the most important false flag variation, which assumes that 'interested elements' of the authorities orchestrated and fully implemented the events, with the intent to profit from their aftermath.</p> <p><b>11)</b> A training drill may be used as a cover for a false-flag operation, with the media subsequently reporting only the attack itself. This leaves all mentions of the training drill to the alternative media, where they can be dismissed as coincidence, inconsequence or just plain lies.</p> <p><b>12)</b> Conspiracies rely on compartmentalisation to minimise the number of informed participants. Only a select few people are in on the whole conspiracy, and these high-level individuals can control those below them - those who remain completely unaware of what is being orchestrated.</p> <p><b>13)</b> Establishments do not need to, and cannot cover up completely their conspiracies. Rather, they rely on a compliant media to not report the inevitable slip-ups.</p> <p><b>14)</b> Many people assume continuity means reality, and that the continuous narrative presented by the mainstream media is reality in totality. Many people who are still in the mainstream have positive expectations and understandings of the establishment, and these expectations are fed by mainstream news. The acceptance of a conspiracy may break that continuity - as it may appear to contradict 'reality' entirely - thus people resist.</p> <p><b>15)</b> The establishment and its media may attempt to manufacture a diversion or scandal to distract the public, and to reduce the amount of news coverage a conspiracy might get. </p> <p><b>16)</b> Keywords and key phrases are used by the mass media to cloud or divert people's attentions and understanding. Word's meanings are often twisted so that the new meaning does not match the original concept the word was supposed to symbolise. Check our <a href="">list of keywords and key phrases</a> for some examples.</p> <p><b>17)</b> Coincidence theory. Dishonest pro-official sources, and naïve people will attempt to dismiss all evidence of a conspiracy as mere coincidence. Though, this becomes more difficult as more and more coincidences arise.</p> <p><b>18)</b> The meaning of the word government is too vague for many to grasp, and too vague for the purpose of describing a conspirator. In reality, there are a variety of official agencies, military organisations, military intelligence agencies, private contractors, bureaucracies, political parties, think tanks, international organisations, secret societies, cartels, clubs and corporations that aid the ruling class, and these might be better summarised by the word 'establishment'. </p> <p>Not all of these example organisations hold the same types of power and influence, and some are more likely to be involved in a conspiracy than others. Many of these organisations will co-operate with other interested groups in order to reach a common goal.</p> <p><b>19)</b> Eliminating whistle blowers is only done as a last resort, as it would prove the existence of a conspiracy. Using the media to ridicule them is privileged.</p> <p><b>20)</b> In allegedly democratic societies, conspiracies must be conducted in a way that does not betray the true authoritarian nature of the state and preserves the democratic curtain.</p> <p><b>21)</b> 'Qui bono?' -- Who stands to gain? Any official story where a perpetrator does not have an obvious motive for his action must be considered suspect.</p> <p><b>22)</b> The first objective of any cover-up is to reach the public mind before it has recovered from its shock. An official story must be planted immediately after the confusion and before any other theory can take shape, in order for the chosen story to provide psychological relief to the public. Challenging the official story will thus be difficult, as it will strip the public from its comfort blanket.</p> <p><b>23)</b> A cover-up may be countered if the public is warned about the possibility of an establishment conspiracy before the official story is implanted, and before the media can ridicule alternative theories.</p> <p><b>24)</b> Esoteric vs Exoteric. Very often, an official public symbol, statement, action, or plan of action will have a different motive or meaning to the one publicly stated, and can thus be subjected to multiple interpretations by those who are skeptical. One must always look for hidden meanings and beneficiaries.</p> <p>One variation is 'function creep'; this phenomena occurs when a system or law is put in place to deal with a specific situation, but is subsequently expanded to deal with many unrelated situations - gaining scope and power in the process. Surveillance technology is an obvious example of function creep, with the exoteric purpose being crime-fighting, and the esoteric purpose being total surveillance, tracking and information gathering.</p> <p><b>25)</b> Red Herrings may be inserted into an event or investigation to confuse researchers. The red herrings normally point to alternate culprits, or are intended to break any incriminating patterns that should exist.</p> <p><b>Copyright This material may be reproduced and distributed as long as a link to the original article is included.</b></p> > EXCLUSIVE: The hive mind and the human food chain Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:38:00 GMT <p><b>The hive mind and the human food chain</b></p> <p><b>Article written by Gatecreepers.</b></p> <p><b>Aim:</b> The aim of this article is firstly to describe what the 'hive-mind' is, and secondly to compare and contrast the concept of 'food chain' societies with the concept of civilised community. After this, the article will attempt to inextricably link the hive mind with the food chain concept of society. Finally the article will posit that hive mind / food chain societies are uncivil and harmful to mankind. In this article, consciousness and free will are taken to mean the same thing, and it is assumed that consciousness enables free will.</p> <p><b>What is the food chain?</b></p> <p>It is a system in which human beings are not living as equals, rather, they live in a system where they can be owned, consumed or destroyed by those who are more powerful than them. Systems, like fascism, capitalism, communism, socialism and religious fundamentalism are basically pyramid schemes, or food chains, designed to lift power and wealth out of the hands of the many and into the hands of the few, through use of force, threat of force or deception. In food chains, force, threats of force and deception overwhelmingly move downward, and as a result, wealth moves slowly upward.</p> <p>How does this compare and contrast with the concept of civilised community? A civilised community is a place where logic, reason and morals replace brute force and fear as the prime force controlling society. Both communities and food chains are driven to maintain their existence, but they do so in two opposing ways. Whereas a civilised community is primarily egalitarian, supportive and cooperative in its need for survival, a food chain is focussed on consumption and competition for survival. Essentially it is hierarchy versus heterarchy.</p> <p>The societal and economic structure - the food chain - is theoretical; man-made. More importantly, it is non-living, yet it exhibits the features of a living entity. First and foremost, it exhibits self-preservation, valuing it's continued existence above everything else. It's structure is a mesh of laws, which can outlive a man; the security services and justice system are it's immune system; it's circulatory system is that of money, and it's sustenance is acquired from the wealth and possessions of others. It is parasitic in nature, and yet it is the centre of almost every society. A non-living entity to which the living are sacrificed for the sake of efficiency, economics, culture, politics, religion and conformity. The standards necessary for social cohesiveness are now centered around the needs of the state, not around the needs of humanity. In practice, because of the hierarchical nature of the food chain, the needs of the state, regardless of the political system claimed to be in place, usually coincide with the needs of the controlling elite, </p> <p>Carl Jung said <i>"The larger a society or confederacy, the greater the amalgamation of collective factors - which is typical of every large organization - will rest upon conservative prejudices to the detriment of the individual, the more aggravated the moral and spiritual degeneration of the individual."</i> This quote is just as appropriate for the hive mind...</p> <p><b>What is the hive-mind?</b></p> <p><i>"They hold authority as the truth, not truth as the authority."</i></p> <p>The hive mind is an organisation of society where thought and decision making have largely become centralised. Centralisation of power implies concentration of power, because an elite few exerts the power of millions of unquestioning people under their chain of command. For this to happen, the majority of a population must, at some point, have ceased independent thought in favour of the opinions and dictates of experts and elites. These experts and elites are, of course, serving themselves.</p> <p>To be more specific, the individual human mind is powered by consciousness, which makes decisions based strongly on the need for self-preservation. [Note that in contrast to animals, the human will often use the conscious mind to make survival decisions, instead of relying on instinct alone.] The less an individual needs to make decisions regarding their lives and their futures, the less that individual links self-consciousness with self preservation, and thus the less likely it is that that individual will be influenced by their natural desire for self-preservation. People have left the responsibility for preservation to the authorities, and in doing so, they have rescinded control of their own minds to a central point outside themselves; unfortunately it is a centralised control source which does not see their individual lives as anything of importance.</p> <p>Free will and the hive mind are in eternal conflict. However, free will remains essential to society regardless of which system is chosen: people at the top of any given hierarchy must make decisions for those below them, therefore it follows that people with free will must head the hive mind. The hive mind differs from civilised society in that the controlling elites hold a monopoly on free will and seek to preserve it at all costs.</p> <p><b>How is the hive mind linked with the food chain?</b></p> <p>The hive mind is the mechanism through which the food chain enacts self preservation. So it follows that there must be some form of hive mind before there can be a food chain. Even small hive mind organisations like the police and army are sufficient to begin the enforced transformation of society into a food chain. As the hive mind relies on centralised authority, it needs to build itself upon existing hierarchies by bringing them under its control.</p> <p>Both the food chain and the conscious mind share the feature of self-preservation. Yet free will is a threat to the food chain and the hive mind. As a matter of course, and as a matter of self preservation, the dominant systems must act to repress and oppress consciousness and individuality. Identity must be a collective state of mind. Fashion, religion, culture, politics and nationality are just some of the ways in which populations can be collectively summarised 'to the detriment of the individual'. </p> <p>Like civilised society, the food chain requires social cohesion for its self-preservation. However, this cohesion has different purposes: in civilised society, social cohesion departs from the grassroots and is enforced by people interacting and forming agreements with each other. In a food chain, social cohesion is enforced from the top, by elites through a centralised media. Contrarily to a civilised society, social cohesion is kept at a minimum required to gleam popular support for the establishment, whilst otherwise maintaining division amongst the people. </p> <p>Peer pressure is instinctive to the preservation of the group, as individuals who do not conform threaten the cohesiveness of the group. The modern hive mind is thus a return to a primitive state of mind which is easily manipulated by peer pressure and groupthink. Peer pressure and groupthink are important phenomena in the hive mind: peer pressure is use of persuasion, intimidation or shame by the majority against a minority, and groupthink is the acceptance of information or opinions, without any analysis, by a group of people who are similar in some way. </p> <p>Of interest: one of the most striking studies on the mechanisms of peer pressure is the <a href="">Asch conformity experiment.</a> </p> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> <p>In order for the elites to exploit peer pressure, the hive mind requires a strong centralised media network through which to cast its spell, and so television and newspapers are some of the most powerful mediums through which the hive mind can be formatted. The goal of the centralised media is to encourage people to relinquish critical thinking and to rely instead on opinions proffered by paid experts. </p> <p>However, a certain degree of complacency is required for people to willingly give up their minds to central control. In contrast to those who only use free will intermittently, those who might be classified as 'stubbornly conscious' are far more difficult to program, and formatting their minds takes longer. They will dedicate themselves to self-preservation and individuality, and thus they are normally at odds with the food-chain society in which they find themselves. Consciousness resists centralised control as a matter of self-preservation. If a conscious individual becomes aware of the organised intent against their sovereignty, programming them may become impossible. </p> <p>For this reason, the media must primarily target the people whose level of consciousness is the weakest, and work their way up until they successfully program the majority of the population. As it is impossible to program the 'stubbornly conscious', the media must resort to discrediting them in the eyes of the brainwashed majority. This is easier to accomplish when the people are made to distrust each other and anyone but the anointed experts.</p> <p>The weakest elements of society can be made to give up their sovereignty willingly by encouraging a phony sense of individualism which actually robs them of their individuality. Self-gratification and minimal effort are routinely promoted as values by the advertising industry; thus solutions to every problem can be found by purchasing the right product. Likewise, self-preservation is delegated to the authorities, and laziness of thought is encouraged. At the same time people are taught that they are spared the effort of thinking for themselves and preserving themselves by experts who do it for them. The promoted selfishness sells the idea that people only need to care about their own well-being; it is also implied that the others will be taken care of by the appropriate authorities.</p> <p>For the same reasons, people are taught to distrust their peers, and in the name of individualism are told to rely on their own opinions, which had already been formed by the media. One of the advantages of promoting division is that it maintains the illusion that the hive minds (institutions?) to which people knowingly hold allegiance are still independent, even as they are being integrated under a centralised chain of command. Thus people can be made to indirectly obey the central elite by controlling the authority figures that people already trust. </p> <p>This centralisation of thought-process and opinion formation can thus rapidly program and re-program the unconscious elements of a society from the top-down. The result is that radical changes in society can take place in a matter of months, and not generations as was previously required. </p> <p><b>Copyright This material may be reproduced and distributed as long as a link to the original article is included.</b></p> > 23 Tools To Brainwash and Influence People Through Media Fri, 25 May 2007 15:46:00 GMT <p><b>23 Tools To Brainwash and Influence People Through Media</b></p> <p>Original article: <a href="">[1]</a></p> <blockquote><p>‘’till at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!“ - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World</p></blockquote> <p>The opinions and behaviors of people and societies are easily swayed. Every decade, every year, every week, those who control mass media change the climates of human thought. New pop stars, fashions, and fads are paraded center stage and then exit stage left followed by floods of expendable cash, leaving the path of sordid garbage known as “popular culture” in its wake.</p> <p>Now the power to rule the world and wag the cultural dog is at your fingertips. What follows are simple instructions, a manual, a playbook of sorts, some simple behavioral tools to influence and take advantage of the nervous systems of all your peers.</p> <p><b>The 23 Tools:</b></p> <p><b>1.</b> The key to truly effective brainwashing is to work at people’s most fundamental awareness. Shape them at the neurological level so they develop the faculties to take your input and call it “thinking for myself.” Enable them to stop thinking.</p> <p><b>2.</b> Limit any and all faculties for self-awareness and self-sensing. Destroy instinct and intuition. Actively and endlessly encourage external awareness. Make people dependent on your external input for as many decisions as possible.</p> <p><b>3.</b> Speed up messages so that the pace and rhythm of information is disorienting and visually biased.</p> <p><b>4.</b> Condition people to being bombarded with hundreds of thousands of signals a day. Teach them to attend to this stream of information and to call it Reality. Never let them ask what “reality” is.</p> <p><b>5.</b> Framing is everything. Decide what you want people to believe and make sure that any choices you give them are within a framework which assures you of your result. This is called the Illusion of Choice. “Do you want to sweep the floor before or after dinner?” Repeat this formula for economic systems, politicians, news stories, competing product brands and entertainment.</p> <p><b>6.</b> Appeal to the lowest common denominator. Make sure that all shows model conflict resolution of people with an emotional and intellectual maturity no greater than that of a six year old. Make it funny so no one notices.</p> <p><b>7.</b> Keep people passive. Encourage the Couch Potato Alpha Wave Escape Plan as the healing elixir for all that ails.</p> <p><b>8.</b> Don’t make people think. Their days are hard enough as is. Bypass the need for opinion making by giving people ready-made opinions. Do it as though you don’t have a conscience – they are probably too stupid to make their own decisions anyway.</p> <p><b>9.</b> Ensure that there are no ongoing storylines with meaning or purpose beyond immediate sensory stimulation. Avoid universal themes as much as possible. Make absolutely certain there is no cultural, societal or global story or mythology present that conflicts with the myths of comfort and consumption.</p> <p><b>10.</b> Never encourage responsibility, or so much as suggest that humans could be involved in co-creating their future and the realities in which they reside.</p> <p><b>11.</b> Encourage group-sanctioned individuality only. By making ‘individuality” the new conformity you are generating a powerful illusion of free choice.</p> <p><b>12.</b> Sensationalize the superficial.</p> <p><b>13.</b> Keep information bytes infinitesimally small. Promote Attention Deficit Disorder. Several decades of television have already set this in motion.</p> <p><b>14.</b> Repetition is key. Repeat important messages as often as possible.</p> <p><b>15.</b> Repetition is key.</p> <p><b>16.</b> Repetition is key.</p> <p><b>17.</b> Bypass rationality by any means possible. People don’t need logic to accept information. Belief is emotional. Always remember: WAR=PEACE.</p> <p><b>18.</b> Remember –- two half-truths make up a whole truth.</p> <p><b>19.</b> Demonize self-knowledge technology of all kinds. Throw around words like “cult” and “brainwashing.” Marginalize anyone involved in such pursuits.</p> <p><b>20.</b> Keep old models of consciousness alive and well. If you can get away with referring to people’s states as being phlegmatic or sanguine instead of programmable and intentional, do it.</p> <p><b>21.</b> Keep people’s attention on what really matters. Emphasize what’s wrong as much as possible.</p> <p><b>22.</b> Always give the impression that Everything Is Under Control – but just barely so – hammer into the populace the idea that their greatest fear could strike at any moment.</p> <p><b>23.</b> Teach people that they are their thoughts and emotions. Reinforce this by teaching them to feel bad about their ideas, and to feel bad about feeling bad. Remember: Identify, identify, identify –- this will widen the empty void inside of them that only shopping can cure.</p> <p>By sticking to these simple premises you should be able to produce entire societies capable of ending world hunger, but too selfish to care. You will be able to bring about massive consumer mindsets and buying habits so powerful that logic and reason become superfluous in making the sale. You will be the new face of media. Good luck! </p> > Mercury and Brain Damage [Videos] Thu, 17 May 2007 05:06:00 GMT <p><b>Mercury and Brain Damage</b></p> <p><b>Article written by Gatecreepers.</b></p> <p>Original link: <a href="">[1]</a></p> <p>This is video confirmation of the negative effects of mercury on neurones:</p> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> <p>Also of interest:</p> <p>Original link: <a href="">[2]</a></p> <p>Here we see the Bayer scandal, where HIV tainted medication was sold deliberately, and without regard for human life:</p> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> <p>Original link: <a href="">[3]</a></p> <p>Here we see a clip of Alex Jones discussing tainted vaccines:</p> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> <p>Original link: <a href="">[4]</a></p> <p>Merck drug company admits injecting cancer viruses:</p> <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value=""> </param> <embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"> </embed> </object> > How to co-opt academia Sat, 12 May 2007 04:55:00 GMT <p><b>How to co-opt academia</b></p> <p>Original link: <a href="">[1]</a></p> <p>[The CIA asked University of California administrator Earl Clinton Bolton, who was spending some time at CIA headquarters, to suggest ideas on how to improve relations between the Agency and academia.]</p> <p><b>Contents</b></p> <ul> <li><a href="#01">1 Academia 01, p.1</a></li> <li><a href="#02">2 Academia 01, p.2</a></li> <li><a href="#03">3 Academia 01, p.3</a></li> <li><a href="#04">4 Academia 01, p.4</a></li> <li><a href="#05">5 Academia 01, p.5</a></li> <li><a href="#06">6 Academia 01, p.6</a></li> <li><a href="#07">7 Academia 01, p.7</a></li> </ul> <p><b><a name="01">Academia 01, p.1</a></b></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p>5 August 1968 <b>MEMORANDUM FOR:</b> [deleted] <b>SUBJECT:</b> Agency-Academic Relations</p> <p>This is an attempt to make some observations and suggestions about Agency-academic relations. In doing so I am grateful for the stimulus furnished by your outline. Although I believe I have addressed myself to most of the questions you have raised I have done so in free form rather than by a point by point consideration. I have also used "head notes" for purposes of organization and in an attempt to highlight the crucial questions in the subject.</p> <p>Justifying an Agency-Academic Relationship: Let me stress at the outset that I believe Agency-academic relations are for the most part very good. Though I have no quantitative data to support such a conclusion my guess is that 99% of the members of the academy would be willing to assist the Agency if properly and skillfully approached, and that only a small fraction of that other 1% would be angered by an invitation to assist or would attempt to embarrass the Agency in any way.</p> <p>However, on occasion when a university or an individual has acknowledged any contact with the Agency there has been some outcry by a few vocal members of the academic community.</p> <p>In a later part of this paper I suggest "an affirmative program" designed to improve the Agency's reputation in academic circles and thus decrease the risks (costs) of association with the Agency. However, until either the passage of time or an image bolstering plan changes the cliches of the moment an educational institution or individual electing to assist the Agency may be on the defensive.</p> <p>In my view the best way to defend association with the Agency when such a defense is necessary is:</p> <p><b>1.</b> By relating work for the Agency to one of the traditional functions of a university; and</p> <p><b><a name="02">Academia 01, p.2</a></b></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><b>2.</b> By basing the defense or rejoinder on long established academic values.</p> <p>The Functions of a University: There is almost universal agreement that universities do (and properly should) engage in the following basic functions:</p> <p><b>1.</b> The preservation and transmission of knowledge to their constituency (i.e. the so-called teaching function); and</p> <p><b>2.</b> The testing of that which is currently accepted as "truth" and the discovery of new truth (i.e. the research function); and</p> <p><b>3.</b> The performance for society's benefit of those functions which can best (or exclusively) be performed by a university (i.e. the public service function)</p> <p>Authorities will differ as to whether a sub-function e.g. the training of a leadership elite to be innovative and responsive should be included under "1" or "3" above, but there is little disagreement that what higher education is all about is encompassed within these general goals.</p> <p>The Agency should phrase its requests to academia in such a way that the service being sought relates as clearly and directly as possible to one of these traditional functions and when necessary the university and individual scholar should explain involvement with the Agency as a contribution to one of these proper academic goals. It should also be stressed that when an apologia is necessary it can best be made: (1) by some distant academic who is not under attack, (2) in a "respectable" publication of general circulation (e.g. Harpers, Saturday Review, Vital Speeches, etc.), and (3) with full use of the jargon of the academy (as illustrated below).</p> <p>Traditional Mores of the Academic: Every profession develops a certain ethical or philosophical penumbra which is more or less sacred and which protects from attack the most vulnerable or least understood rites of that profession. This body of doctrine usually develops by "common law" and is subsequently codified. (Incidentally the codified dogma never precisely articulates the full scope of the protective doctrines; hence there is sufficient vagueness in the total traditions of the profession to provide a skillful polemicist with formidable ammunition for defense.)</p> <p><b><a name="03">Academia 01, p.3</a></b></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p>Two doctrines fiercely protected by the academy are "academic freedom" and "privilege and tenure." The former is the absolute right of the scholar to investigate any subject within his competence, in any lawful way, at any time. The latter doctrine holds that a fully initiated member of the profession has certain irrevocable privileges, including but not limited to, the right to continue his association with the university until retirement without fear of termination except for a very few egregious offenses.</p> <p>When attacked for aiding the Agency the academic (or institution) should base a rejoinder on these sacred doctrines. For example, a professor's right to undertake classified research is unassailable if he stands on the ground of academic freedom and his privileges as a scholar. And he should be reminded that although his derogators may undertake a good deal of no loud rhetoric they really cannot impair his tenure.</p> <p>Contracts and Grants: I have discussed [several words deleted] the matter of research arrangement between the Agency and academic world. Here are some of my further ideas on the subject.</p> <p><b>1.</b> Shouldn't the Agency have an insulator such as Rand or IDA? Such entities have quite good acceptance in academia, do excellent work and provide real protection against "blow back." Such an independent corporation should of course have a ringing name (e.g. Institute for a Free Society), should do work for the entire intelligence community, and should really have a sufficiently independent existence so that it can take the heat on some projects if necessary.</p> <p><b>2.</b> In my opinion we are in a cycle in which we are moving away from institutional involvement in classified contracts toward a time when no classified research will be allowed on campus even by a professor acting on his own. The Agency might want to try to anticipate this trend by offering off-campus leased space to scholars doing work for the Agency.</p> <p><b><a name="04">Academia 01, p.4</a></b></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><b>3.</b> The indirect cost rate which is allowed by BOB Circular A-21 is regarded by academic people as being unfair to the university. This "overhead" rate does not allow adequate recovery of actual hidden costs. Your contracting officer ought to be encouraged to adjust the established rate upward by a point or two as an incentive to institutions of higher education to take work.</p> <p><b>4.</b> As a general rule contracts and grants should be made only in response to proposals which "originate" with the principal investigator on the campus. The real initiative might be with the Agency but the apparent or record launching of the research should, wherever possible, emanate from the campus.</p> <p><b>5.</b> (Here is a declaration against interest.) It seems to me that there are few instances in which it is indispensable or even necessary to contract with an academic entity rather than the principal investigator directly. Therefore because of the increased complexity of the transaction of the institution is involved I would suggest that virtually all of your contracts and grants be made directly to the individual. Perhaps personal service agreements could be used to replace traditional contracts and grants for sponsored research.</p> <p><b>6.</b> Would it be possible to substitute some new designations for words such as "classified," "secret," "confidential," etc? Perhaps labels such as "limited access research," "not to be discussed with others without prior permission of the Agency," etc. could be used. My point is that such terms as classified research have become so emotionally charged that they provoke an irrational response before substantive content is even considered.</p> <p><b><a name="05">Academia 01, p.5</a></b></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p>"The Image": An Affirmative Program: Good public relations means excellent performance publicly appreciated. Because of the nature of the Agency's work discussions about performance must be limited, and efforts to gain public appreciation minimized. However I think it is possible to improve acceptance among that "public" which is the academic world.</p> <p>To accomplish such a result would require a positive, long-term public relations plan. My impression is that the Agency has excellent press relations, but is not affirmatively interested (probably intentionally) in overall public relations. As to the academic community I would suggest that a very well considered, affirmative public relations program be developed.</p> <p>The evolution of a public relations plan follows well recognized steps. These steps are suggested by the following questions.</p> <p><b>1.</b> How do we appear to the target group (academia) today?</p> <p><b>2.</b> How do we want to appear to that target group five years hence?</p> <p><b>3.</b> What steps should we take to get from phase 1 to 2?</p> <p>It is of course unlikely that the goal in 3 above will just happen by accident; the goal is obviously more likely to be reached if there is a plan.</p> <p>It is difficult to suggest implementing techniques without first knowing the precise future image the Agency would like to have in the academic world. However, I believe the following suggestions would generally improve that image among academicians.</p> <p><b>1.</b> Follow a plan of emphasizing that CIA is a member of the national security community (rather than the intelligence community) and stress the great number of other agencies with which the Agency is allied in advancing national interests. Several such agencies (FBI, AEC, Secret Service, State Department, etc.) have spent much time, money and thought on telling their story. In my view the Agency will benefit by some "transfer" effect.</p> <p><b><a name="06">Academia 01, p.6</a></b></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><b>2.</b> Establish at Yale the Walter Bedell Smith or William J. Donovan Lectures or Chair on Intelligence as an Instrument of National Policy. (Try in as many ways as possible to establish the study of intelligence as a legitimate and important field of inquiry for the academic scholar.)</p> <p><b>3.</b> Invite qualified and sympathetic scholars to take their sabbaticals at the Agency. They would work not as consultants, for that is a very different function, but on subjects and in a manner traditionally followed by a professor on his sabbatical.</p> <p><b>4.</b> Permit a few carefully nominated and selected doctoral candidates to spend a year at the Agency working on their dissertations. The unclassified materials in the library are a rich source of materials for genuine academic research. The candidate would of course have to recognize the Agency's right to review the finished document for accidental leaks.</p> <p><b>5.</b> Provide a handsomely funded post doctoral one-year opportunity for selected scholars. (The John McCone Fellowships?)</p> <p><b>6.</b> Publicize any effort of the Agency to make scarce materials available to scholars. (Could the story of the Hoover Institution -- Agency arrangement be told by a distinguished scholar of Chinese affairs in a publication of general interest to academics?)</p> <p><b>7.</b> Stress in recruiting, articles and speeches that the Agency is really a university without students and not a training school for spies. There is as much academic freedom within the walls of the building and among those competent on a given subject as on any campus I know. (I haven't detected the slightest tendency on the part of anyone to resist saying what he thinks.)</p> <p><b><a name="07">Academia 01, p.7</a></b></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><b>8.</b> Encourage Agency representatives who attend academic meetings to clearly identify their affiliation.</p> <p><b>9.</b> Do all recruiting off campus and try to time these visits so that the probability of reaction is decreased e.g. during the summer, between semesters, after the last issue of the student paper is printed for the semester, etc.</p> > EXCLUSIVE: Debunking the Maddox '9/11 morons' page Sat, 12 May 2007 02:05:00 GMT <div style="background: #000; color: white; width: 100%; height: 100%; padding: 20px 10px 20px 10px;"> <p>Our original site can be found at <a href="" style="color: yellow;"></a></p> <p>Updated [12-05-07]</p> <p><b>Debunking Maddox: Why you should not get your 9-11 facts on a satire site.</b></p> <p><b>Article written by Gatecreepers.</b></p> <p><img src="" alt=""/></p> <p><img src= "" alt=""/></p> <p><img src="" alt=""/></p> <p><img src="" alt=""/></p> <p>Chances are, if you're reading this page then you are one of those people who tried to serve someone <a href="" style="color: yellow;">the Maddox '9-11 morons' page</a>, and in turn got served this page.</p> <p>Maddox makes many people laugh with his cutting sarcasm. However, being mainly focussed on entertaining people rather than seeking the truth, he picks on the most easily discreditable works of research to serve as fodder for his satire.</p> <p>As much as we acknowledge the efforts of Dylan and his team to spread the word, Maddox correctly points out that Loose Change is a flawed documentary. What you will not hear from him, however, is that the 9-11 truth movement is also the work of dedicated researchers and experts. You might want to check out <a href="" style="color: yellow;">their opinions on Loose Change</a>.</p> <p>By the way, what Maddox also doesn't know is that all the documents he linked to have been rebutted a long time ago.</p> <p>1) The NIST article is debunked here: <a href="" style="color: yellow;"> [1]</a></p> <p>2) The Popular Mechanics article is debunked here: <a href="" style="color: yellow;">[2]</a></p> <p>And here: <a href="" style="color: yellow;">[3]</a></p> <p>If there are any Maddox fans out there who want to attack something for themselves, then sink your teeth into these videos. Warning: They don't die easy.</p> <center> <p>TerrorStorm:</p> <div class="center"><object id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400px" height="326px" data=";hl=en-GB"><param name="movie" value=";hl=en-GB" /></object></div> <p>Martial Law 9-11: Rise of the Police State:</p> <div class="center"><object id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400px" height="326px" data=";hl=en-GB"><param name="movie" value=";hl=en-GB" /></object></div> <p>9-11 The Road to Tyranny:</p> <div class="center"><object id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400px" height="326px" data=";hl=en-GB"><param name="movie" value=";hl=en-GB" /></object></div> </center> <center> <p style="color: yellow; font-size: 18pt;"><b>The fact that this man is alive...</b></p> <p><img src="" alt=""/></p> <p style="color: yellow; font-size: 18pt;"><b> proof that there is no God.</b></p> </center> <p>Good eh?</p> <p>So as for the idea that Dylan Avery would need to be killed, Maddox bases that on his insane idea that the U.S. government is capable of behaving like the Borg. Apparently it has a singular awareness across time and space, and they will come for you. They are all in on it, apparently.</p> <p>He treats us to his delusions further by insisting that the U.S. government needs 100,000s of workers from all kinds of departments to pull off the same job that 19 Arabs did. If Americans are that incompetent, then it's time to fire them and hire, say, 100 efficient Arabs instead. No?</p> <p>Let me also make clear that G.W. Bush can't be the one who ordered it. Most likely he had foreknowledge, but the planning and the details would have been beyond him. This is the work of experts, not idiots.</p> <p>In order to accomplish 9-11 there only needs to be minimal CIA officer involvement - instigated by the upper ranks of corporations and cartels who stand to benefit from the resulting war - plus people to set the plane's autopilot systems. That's it. Inside job.</p> <p>This is also why the rogues would find it difficult to fabricate and plant lots of stuff besides disinformation. There aren't enough of them to enact plans like total information control, assassinations and whatever else. They just cause chaos for their benefit.</p> <p>Now guess what? On that same day <a href="" style="color: yellow;">NORAD</a> were running <a href="" style="color: yellow;">top secret drills</a> to simulate hijackings of planes which were to be flown into important targets. What a coincidence. Only a small number of people within the drill personnel are needed to reset the autopilots of the 4 planes. Either that or the planes were actually flown manually, and the secret drill the Arabs somehow knew about was used as a smokescreen to avoid detection and interception.</p> <p>What Maddox fails to tell you is that there were <a href="" style="color: yellow;">no Arab suspects</a> listed on the planes that went down on 9-11. <a href="" style="color: yellow;">Check the lists</a> yourselves.</p> <p>Now, if you want to invent Arabs - and then go to war over it, that makes YOU the 9-11 nutjob.</p> <p>Why does the corporate media keep on at us with the damn 19 Arabs thing? Something to do with not wanting to upset their <a href="" style="color: yellow;">defense contractor shareholders</a> perhaps?</p> <p>So, the official story is that the Arabs all got onto planes, supposedly without any of them being put on the passenger lists. They can now fly large aircraft <a href="" style="color: yellow;">without necessary training</a> - including pulling incredible maneuvers. Not only that, they manage to do it without ground control putting the plane on autopilot and stopping the entire thing. <a href="" style="color: yellow;">Oh yes they can, apparently</a>.</p> <p>BBC reported that <a href="" style="color: yellow;">some of the hijackers</a> were <a href="" style="color: yellow;">found alive</a> after the 9-11 attacks. Apparently Allah was so grateful to the hijackers that he decided to resurrect them and land them from the burning towers safely on the ground. Another example of this divine miracle is, of course, the <a href="" style="color: yellow;">indestructible passport</a>, which survived the flames along with the hijackers. Then the FBI admits there was <a href="" style="color: yellow;">no hard evidence</a> linking Bin Laden to 9-11.</p> <p>Maddox alludes to the government not having a good reason for staging 9-11. For starters, they admitted their motives one year before the event, when they published their PNAC document <i><a href="" style="color: yellow;">Rebuilding America's Defenses</a></i>: on page 51, they state that 'The process of transformation, [...] is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor'.</p> <p>Look who <a href="" style="color: yellow;">benefits from terrorism</a>: oil industry, defense industry, construction industry, military intel, police, and politicians who want to remove civil liberties and human rights. In other words, the same people who wrote the document referenced above, many of whom are also in the <a href="" style="color: yellow;">Carlyle Group</a>.</p> <p>That whole thing where the government acts like it is with the people is bullshit. The people suffer, the government and certain industries grow stronger.</p> <p>Why attack Afghanistan? An <a href="" style="color: yellow;">oil pipeline</a> needs setting up. Why attack Iraq? To shut down their <a href="" style="color: yellow;">Euro oil bourse</a>, and according to the PNAC document, to install military bases in Iraq (page 14). Defense industry makes a killing along the way. Get it now?</p> <p>But here's the toughest question: would it be possible for the government of a country that <a href="" style="color: yellow;">planned to attack it's own</a> citizens to get an excuse to invade Cuba, that <a href="" style="color: yellow;">allowed 399 African Americans to die of syphilis</a> for a medical experiment, that <a href="" style="color: yellow;">involved over 30 universities in mind control experiments</a> on innocent Americans and <a href="" style="color: yellow;">Canadians</a> involving forcible administration of LSD and electroshocks, conducted <a href="" style="color: yellow;">hundreds of human experiments</a> on unwilling subjects, that sent more than 2,500 soldiers to their deaths over a war based on fraudulent premises, and allowing <a href="" style="color: yellow;">first responders to die from asbestos poisoning</a> after telling them the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe, to have a high enough level of immorality to murder 3,000 people in order to invade the Middle East?</p> <p>I mean, Operation NORTHWOODS is a good indicator of what was possible long ago, think about what is possible today.</p> <p><a href="" style="color: yellow;"></a></p> <p><img src="" alt=""/></p> <p>Don't even get me started on the stupid dollar bill thing.</p> <p><a href="" style="color: yellow;"></a></p> <blockquote style="color: white;"><p>"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."</p></blockquote> <p><img src="" alt=""/></p> <p>Maddox ends:</p> <blockquote style="color: white;"><p>For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links:</p></blockquote> <p>Well, there was <a href="" style="color: yellow;">molten steel found at WTC-1, WTC-2 and WTC-7</a>. MOLTEN. That means something other than jet fuel was involved in the collapses. It says a lot that the official story is reliant upon the fire weakening theory, but is silent on the presence of molten steel.</p> <p><b>Copyright This material may be reproduced and distributed as long as a link to the original article is included.</b></p> </div> > EXCLUSIVE: Chavez was right Sat, 12 May 2007 01:34:00 GMT <p><b>Article written and compiled by Gatecreepers.</b></p> <p>Chavez was not off the mark when he linked Bush with satanism. In addition to the numerous crimes committed by the Bush regime, it appears that Bush and many government officials believe in the occult.</p> <p>Here are some pictures that show that Bush is not quite the devout Christian he portrays himself to be. An analysis follows below. Please note, these are not hook-em horns. Bush did not attend UT, he attended Yale.</p> <p><img src="" width="100%"/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p>His disciples:</p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/> </p> <p><img src="" width="100%"/></p> <p><img src=""/> </p> <p><img src=""/> </p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/> </p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/> </p> <p>You might think that many of the above pictures are harmless, but consider Bohemian Grove: The elite of politics and business worship a giant 45-foot stone owl called Moloch, to which they offer a sacrificial human effigy.</p> <p><img src=" "/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p>And consider Skull and Bones, aka The Brotherhood of Death:</p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p>Check out Alex Jones' analysis of the Bohemian Grove ritual:</p> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> <p>It should worry you that your leaders engage in such behaviours, whether or not you are religious. I think we can all find some relief, however, in the very real possibility that the 'elites' have conducted most of their rituals wrongly. I understood from my reading of Manly P Hall's 'The Secret Teachings of All Ages' that the pagans and other early civilisations represented various natural and universal powers by use of symbolic statues, idols and monuments.</p> <blockquote><p>The initiates of old warned their disciples that an image is not a reality but merely the objectification of a subjective idea. The images of the gods were not designed to be objects of worship but were to be regarded merely as emblems or reminders of invisible powers and principles. [The Secret Teachings of All Ages, Manly P Hall, p74]</p></blockquote> <p>So, the 'common people' would see these idols and worship them in a literal manner - as the physical entities they depicted. The priest classes and elites however refrained from such worship, as they knew the statues were merely symbolic of non-corporeal natural effects. The worship of Moloch falls into this category, surely?</p> <p>If not, then the elites may have found something substantial to worship, and that raises new questions - and also provides plenty of ammunition for disinfo agents.</p> <p>The <a href="">recent Alex Jones</a> show dealt with some of the most disturbing aspects of this issue, if you are really curious.</p> <p>Now, this latest picture shows Bush showing the hand sign while posing to the camera with Queen Elizabeth II:</p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p><img src=""/></p> <p>To counter claims that the gesture was a mere accident, the pictures above repeatedly show Bush flashing the same hand gesture in front of the cameras, which at the time was explained away as a 'hook-em horns' sign from UT. Furthermore, although the hand in the picture is small, the zoom in along with the muscular effort required to extend the pinky and the index makes it apparent that Bush made his hand gesture deliberately. Thus the gesture that he made along the side of his body is a covert hand signal and not merely a nervous tic. Bush's facial expression does not show any playful mood that could make his hand signal benign.</p> <p>The question thus remains, why would he choose such a moment to covertly display a hand sign supposedly associated with the University of Texas? It is safe to assume that Queen Elizabeth did not attend UT; nor for that matter did Bush, who attended Yale and was a member of the Skull and Bones. On the other hand, they still have more things in common than would be readily apparent to the public. It is known, for example, that the Bush family <a href="">is related by blood to the Windsor family</a>. While this alone may seem trivial or genealogically coincidental, it is worth noting that both families played significant roles in helping the Nazis during WWII. Prince William from the Windsor family is also shown above flashing the same hand signal to the camera. Incidentally, the Nazis were known for their fascination for the occult.</p> <p>Those observations alone may seem inconclusive. Even if they were conclusive, it may be argued that their beliefs, whether satanic as alleged or not, are a matter of private interest. However, what is at issue is not merely the beliefs and the rituals of those people, but the fact that they engage in them covertly whilst having been elected by people who thought they were voting for Christians. The hand sign displayed by Bush, whether satanic or not, implies a secret allegiance to a group that is hidden and unaccountable to the public. This betrays the trust of the public, and is therefore undemocratic.</p> <p>Worse yet, it is worth noting some other members of the Skull and Bones:</p> <ul> <li>John Kerry, Bush's supposed presidential opponent;</li> <li>George Herbert Walker Bush;</li> <li>Prescott Bush, known for funding the Nazis during WWII;</li> <li>George Herbert Walker, co-sponsor of the Nazis with Prescott Bush</li> </ul> <p>Watch Bush and Kerry avoid the issue of their membership to Skull and Bones:</p> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> Both Bush Sr. and Jr. have taken part to social meetings at the Bohemian Grove, another known occult group: <p><a></a></p> <p>So, what does all this mean for the world?</p> <p><img src="" width="100%"/></p> <p>UPDATE: Bush does it again on 9/11:</p> <img src="" /> <p>UPDATE 2: Obama does it too. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.</p> <img src="" /> <img src="" /> <img src="" /> <p><b>Sources:</b></p> <p>Original article: <a href="">Laukev7 Report</a>, with more complete analysis</p> <p>Many pictures taken from: <a href="">Prison Planet</a></p> <p>Latest Obama additions from <a href="">Prison Planet forum</a></p> <p><b>Copyright This material may be reproduced and distributed as long as a link to the original articles are included.</b></p> > EXCLUSIVE: Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories [Infowarrior Resource Part 1] Fri, 04 May 2007 14:40:00 GMT <p><b>Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories</b></p> <p><b>Article written by Gatecreepers.</b></p> <p>The purpose of this article is to redress a number of general myths concerning so-called 'conspiracy theories', repeated by media organisations and other self-proclaimed guardians of the orthodoxy, as well as people who have been erroneously convinced that conspiracy theories are intellectual aberrations rather than the acknowledgment of a common historical and social phenomenon.</p> <p>This document does not claim that every event is the product of a conspiracy. It remains true, however, that conspiracies are far more common than admitted by the establishment. Whether conspiracy or coincidence was involved, we believe that the matter should be arbitrated by evidence rather than falsehoods on the alleged motives or state of minds of alternative researchers.</p> <p>For the purposes of this guide, a conspiracy theory may be defined as:</p> <ul> <li><i>A theory detailing the involvement of two or more people who have secretly or otherwise conspired to commit an act that is against the public interest, and furthermore who may have conspired to cover up these acts in concert with the media and other authorities.</i></li> </ul> <p>Conspiracy theories should not be confused with other schools of alternate reality. Such claims may include:</p> <ul> <li>Supernatural claims. Elite groups may believe and act upon them, but those beliefs alone do not pertain to conspiracy as discussed in this document.</li> <li> Mythological or religious claims. A theory that an occult group engages in subversion according to its religious beliefs may be considered a conspiracy theory, but interpretations of religion and scriptures are not covered by this manual.</li> <li>Claims pertaining to alternative science. The act itself of covering up scientific discoveries is a conspiracy, but the legitimacy of the scientific claims are to be determined by researchers with the proper qualifications.</li> <li>Existential claims. Claims pertaining to the alleged existence of hidden or unobservable phenomena or beings (such as aliens) are not in and of themselves conspiracy theories. Inexperienced proponents of such claims however may attempt to justify their lack of evidence with a conspiracy theory, usually that the evidence is covered up by the government or the entity alleged to exist (in most cases, however, this is a straw man). This secondary claim must be addressed apart from the primary claim with at least evidence that the alleged conspirators believe in the existence of the alleged phenomena, and that they have made attempts to cover it up.</li> </ul> <p>If the entity is alleged to be a participating actor in a conspiracy, then its existence must be proven and the entire claim must be treated as a conspiracy theory.</p> <p>Conspiracy myths may be divided into the following categories:</p> <ul> <li>Claims that discredit proponents of conspiracy theories as legitimate researchers</li> </ul> <p>Ad Hominem attacks are often leveled at conspiracy theorists to label them as paranoid, delusional, extremist, hyperbolic or mentally incompetent. In the case of academics, attempts will be made to undermine their credibility by labeling them as incompetent, unprofessional, or lacking objectivity, or by publicising issues of their lives or beliefs that are unrelated to the theories they propose.</p> <ul> <li> Claims that associate conspiracy theories with group behaviour or psychological pathology</li> </ul> <p>This category is a subset of the first category, but it gets special mention because a large amount of anti-conspiracy propaganda aims at using scientific-sounding theories to equate it with paranoia, frivolous fantasies or security blankets.</p> <p>Claims of this nature are usually made by purported experts from various academic fields. Like the specifically listed claims such as #1, #5, #9, #13, #20, #21 and #22, other claims trying to pin conspiracy theories on group behaviour and psychological disorders are groundless and pseudo-scientific.</p> <p>In extreme cases of demonisation, there may be attempts to conflate belief in conspiracies with paranoid delusion. As pointed out in Myth #16, pathologising anti-establishment researchers has been done in many authoritarian regimes such as current Communist China and the historical Soviet Union, with various labels ranging respectively from 'political maniac' to 'sluggishly progressing schizophrenic'. </p> <p>There may also be attempts to pin belief in conspiracies on sociological reasons, such as alleged needs to 'make sense of a traumatic event' and similarly formulated 'theories'. Those claims are usually found in articles which, despite being written by experts in their own field, rarely cite or point to academic research, are filled with political bias and aim at discrediting a specific conspiracy that started to gain prominence. Articles of this nature are formulaic and often start with statements alleging that conspiracy theories are popular amongst average people and have accompanied most major events (Claim #29).</p> <ul> <li>Claims made by academic scholars that delegitimise the role of conspiracies played in society and history</li> </ul> <p>Many scholars reject conspiracy theories in favour of the so-called 'institutional' perspective, which ascribes events to the dynamics of institutions rather than organised groups. We do not believe that conspiracies and institutions are mutually exclusive; they often work together. Certain institutions that are taken for granted originated from conspiracies; likewise, institutional factors may explain what motivates people and groups to conspire. </p> <p>We believe that the conspiratorial point of view has its merits because not all activities operate within recognised institutions. Hidden, extra-institutional groups can exert major influence in ways that are overlooked by institutionalists.</p> <p>Possible reasons why conspiracy theories are frequent targets of ridicule may include:</p> <ul> <li>Institutionalised intellectual elitism. Mainstream media personalities and academics may feel that their authority and experience are challenged by what they perceive to be 'amateur' research, while seeing themselves in the role of gatekeepers who filter the information to protect the public from what they view as 'unsuitable' information.</li> <li>Deliberate propaganda campaigns aimed at protecting established truths. An example of such a practice has been documented by a declassified document admitting attempts by the CIA to use academics and the media to discredit alternative theories on the assassination of JFK. The document reveals that many of the myths still widespread today and debunked in this document originated from the CIA (see <a href="" title="Countering Criticism of the Warren Report">Countering Criticism of the Warren Report</a>). Other documents reveal CIA infiltration of American and foreign media as well as academia (see <a href="">How to co-opt academia</a> and <a href="" class="external text" title="" rel="nofollow">Operation Mockingbird</a>).</li> <li>The presence of unfounded and over the top conspiracy theories which undermine the credibility of more rational theories. It is speculated that many of those theories were deliberately spread in order to divide or ridicule research communities as well as confuse or turn away people who come across the alternative versions of the official story.</li> <li> Perception of conspiracy theories as being part of a cultural phenomenon or fad rather than a serious investigation of the motives and actions of the ruling elite. Such perceptions are reinforced by stereotypical portrayals in movies and sitcoms, such as 1997 movie Conspiracy Theorist and Dale Gribble in King of the Hill. This stereotypical view of conspiracy theorists, however, appears to be limited to American culture; in fact the expression 'conspiracy theorist' itself appears to be an invention of the American media. Most equivalent terms in other languages are directly translated, sometimes awkwardly (such as in French "partisan de la théorie du complot"), and are not used to label other people to the extent that they in the United States. It is also mainly in American language that one finds expressions such as "tin-foil hat". It is thought that those cultural caricatures originate from the controversies around the JFK assassinations, possibly with initial or on-going prompting from the CIA (see point #2).</li> </ul> <p>The following is a collection of general statements purporting to dismiss conspiracy theories heard in various places from mainstream media articles to discussion forums. A separate document with sources and examples will be provided in the future.</p> <table id="toc" class="toc" summary="Contents"> <tbody> <tr> <td> <ul> <li><a href="">Myth #1: Conspiracy theories offer a simplistic view of how the world is run.</a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #2: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #3: Conspiracy theories violate Occam's Razor</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #4: Conspiracy theorists believe in UFOs / Aliens / Apollo Moon / Holocaust denial</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #5: Government conspiracy theories provide false relief from fear of real social problems</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #6: Conspiracy theories violate Popper's rule of falsifiability</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #7: Governments are unable to cover up their conspiracies</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #8: Conspiracies would be quickly exposed by the media</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #9: Conspiracy theories are attractive for their entertainment value</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=" #10: Conspiracy_theorists_repeat_their_claims_no_matter_how_much_they_are_debunked"><span class="toctext">Myth #10: Conspiracy theorists repeat their claims no matter how much they are debunked</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #11: Conspiracy theories undermine confidence in the democratic system</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #12: Conspiracy theories are based on faith</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #13: Conspiracy theorists are paranoid and engage in fearmongering</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #14: Conspiracy theorists are anti-semitic</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #15: Conspiracy theorists give themselves a false academic façade to tell half-truths</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #16: Conspiracy theorists are crazy / nutty / kooky / cranky</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #17: Conspiracy theories assume the involvement of a large number of people</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #18: Conspiracy whistleblowers would be dead if their claims were true.</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #19: Conspiracy theories blame evil actors whilst failing to address root causes</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #20: Conspiracy theories give a sense of exclusive knowledge</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #21: Conspiracy theorists feel powerless and blame the establishment for their failures</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #22: Conspiracy theories are reassuring because they give a sense of order</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #23: Conspiracy theorists accuse people who disagree with them of being part of the cover-up</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #24: The world is chaotic rather than conspiratorial</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #25: Conspiracy theorists believe that all aspects of every official story have to be consistent</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #26: Conspiracy theory is an 'industry'</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #27: Conspiracy theorists dismiss evidence against their arguments as being part of the conspiracy</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #28: There have been conspiracy theories about every major historical event</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #29: Conspiracy theories are convenient to their proponents because they are impossible to prove</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #30: Conspiracy theories gain acceptance because they make sense out of traumatic events by designating scapegoats</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #31: People look into conspiracy theories because they bring relief to uncertainty of traumatic events by filling the void</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #32: Conspiracy theorists select evidence and fix it according to predetermined conclusions</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #33: Conspiracy theorists are political extremists</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #34: Conspiracy theorists only look at evidence that confirms their theories</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #35: Conspiracy theories can cause insurrections</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #36: Conspiracism results in an excessively diverse set of different narratives based on different assumptions</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #37: Believing in conspiracy theories makes people become paranoid</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #38: Conspirators would be overcome with guilt and confess</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #39: Conspiracy theories can only be proven through official acceptance</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #40: Conspiracy theories are a waste of time</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #41: Conspiracy theories ascribe too often on malice what should be blamed on incompetence</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #42: Conspiracy theories appeal because they validate personal biases</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #43: People believe in conspiracies because they don't know how things work</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #44: People believe in conspiracies because they make them feel empowered</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #45: Conspiracy theories appeal to common sense</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #46: Conspiracy theories assume that big events cannot result from small causes</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #47: Conspiracy theories are based on accumulation of circumstantial evidence rather than a chain of evidence</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href=""><span class="toctext">Myth #48: Conspiracy theorists over-interpret evidence and documents</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#credits"><span class="toctext">Credits and Thanks</span></a></li> </ul> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><a name="Myth_.231:_Conspiracy_theories_show_a_simplistic_view_of_how_the_world_is_run" id="Myth_.231:_Conspiracy_theories_show_a_simplistic_view_of_how_the_world_is_run"></a></p> <h2>Myth #1: Conspiracy theories show a simplistic view of how the world is run.</h2> <p>This claim is made about theories that involve elite organisations and secret societies. Academics claim that such theories are simplistic because they offer certainty and knowledge of hidden affairs, that secret activities are easily understood, only obscured. In other words, the actual claim is that real world is confusing and random (see Myth #24). The claim that conspiracy theories are too simple really says that conspiracy theories are too clear and well defined.</p> <p>However, such dismissals are often used as a pretext to trivialise the roles played by secretive elite groups. Theories that rule out the importance of elite organisations that wield dominant power offer a view of the world that is not only simplistic, but that distorts the reality of power relations and hides the inequities and democratic deficits of the world.</p> <p>Another purpose behind this claim is to take a political, military or national security disaster and revise it to fit the image of the familiar stressful day to day world, with all it's accompanying incompetencies. Yet, it is precisely this picture that is simplified. There are no conspiracies, only mistakes. There are no unseemly activities except for those named in the statutes of the state. Lying on the witness stand is illegal, yet lying to the people is a misunderstanding.</p> <p>In either case, there is little grounds for the claim that conspiracy theories simplify the world. Below the surface, they require people to understand complex concepts including propaganda mechanisms, manufacturing of consent, and how elites gain and maintain their positions of power. Such concepts are not readily accessible to the general public because they are usually ignored or ridiculed by the mainstream media.</p> <p>On the other hand, theories that rule out the existence of elite organisations are appealing because they give people the illusion that they have power and are living in an open society. Therefore, the absence of the concept of a destructive elite will mean that the people never take action to defend against the activities of that elite.</p> <p><a name="Myth_.232:_Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_proof" id="Myth_.232:_Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_proof"></a></p> <h2>Myth #2: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof</h2> <p>Just because someone says a claim is extraordinary does not make it so. People often label any theories that are contrary to the government's version as 'extraordinary', thus implying that the government and it's associated media have a monopoly on what is considered reasonable.</p> <p>Claims are only extraordinary if they have no historical precedent. Therefore, all that is needed to prove that the theory can be proven with ordinary evidence is to point out to a similar case that has happened before.</p> <p><a name="Myth_.233:_Conspiracy_theories_violate_Occam.27s_Razor" id="Myth_.233:_Conspiracy_theories_violate_Occam.27s_Razor"></a></p> <h2>Myth #3: Conspiracy theories violate Occam's Razor</h2> <p>Many people use the phrase as a slick way of dismissing an argument without confronting its supporting evidence, sometimes assuming that the evidence is speculation without having looked at it at all. Often, those people miss the fact that the official theory is questioned partly because it violates Occam's Razor</p> <p>Many conspiracy theorists accept Occam's Razor as a useful technique to refine their theories and eliminate those that rest on too many unproven assertions. However, its premises have been challenged, not least by Occam's contemporaries. Walter of Chatton, for example, formulated his own anti-razor: ("If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on"). </p> <p>Thus, the theory of parsimony only applies insofar as the simplest theory sufficiently explains how the events occur. It must therefore be discarded in favour of a more complex theory if the previous one has holes. The misconception that only simple theories are acceptable flies in the face of the argument that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof', because it makes it impossible to prove theories that rely on complex evidence.</p> <p>Furthermore, Occam's razor is a scientific theory, and thus applies to scientific principles. When two scientific theories make the same prediction, and both predictions appear to be correct then the one that is most simple is accepted. </p> <p>This is inapplicable to social sciences however because of the unpredictable human element involved. Whilst purely physical or chemical reactions can be held to Occam's razor, activities by conscious beings cannot, as conscious beings can deliberately add complexity to events, or they can behave in irrational ways. As an example: the capacity for evil is part of human nature, so it is known that both government and non-government entities are equally capable of evil acts. The way to determine which is more likely to do the evil task is completely based on subjective opinion.</p> <p>Theories should be eliminated by the success or failure of experiments to test their predictions, rather than by Occam's razor alone. It should also not be interpreted as excluding speculation. In the presence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, such as conflict of interest, historical precedents and previous incidents of cover-ups, it is acceptable to assume that some evidence is still being covered up and will not be shown to the public.</p> <p><a name="Myth_.234:_Conspiracy_theorists_believe_in_UFOs_.2F_Aliens_.2F_Apollo_Moon_.2F_Holocaust_denial" id="Myth_.234:_Conspiracy_theorists_believe_in_UFOs_.2F_Aliens_.2F_Apollo_Moon_.2F_Holocaust_denial"></a></p> <h2>Myth #4: Conspiracy theorists believe in UFOs / Aliens / Apollo Moon / Holocaust denial</h2> <p>This is a straw man and an ad hominem fallacy. Not all conspiracy theorists believe in the same things, nor does believing in aliens invalidate their arguments on other theories. The only thing linking these things is that they are all perceived to be conspiracy theories. Each should be evaluated on its own merits.</p> <p>However, if a theorist bases their beliefs on poor argumentation, then other conspiracy theorists may want to distance themselves from him/her or question that theorist's ability to support their own ideas. Many such people are accused of being deliberately planted to discredit other theories, a technique called the 'poisoned well'. The media then proceeds to discredit an entire investigative movement based on a few silly theories - a strawman attack.</p> <p>When the media lumps anybody who doesn't trust the government version of 9-11 into the category of flat earthers and holocaust deniers, any real conspiracy there might have been is given the ultimate defense. Namely, a pre-emptive, universal ad hominem on anyone who would dare talk about it publicly, the archetypal 'tin foil hatter'.</p> <p><a name="Myth_.235:_Government_conspiracy_theories_provide_false_relief_from_fear_of_real_social_or_external_problems" id="Myth_.235:_Government_conspiracy_theories_provide_false_relief_from_fear_of_real_social_or_external_problems"></a></p> <h2>Myth #5: Government conspiracy theories provide false relief from real social problems</h2> <p>Actually, the opposite is true. People would rather believe that the government is benevolent and works in their interests, and are repelled by the idea that it would conspire against them. Part of the reason is knowing that there is something wrong with the system would force people to take actions they would otherwise avoid. Hence, it is the denial of the conspiracy rather than the theory that relieves them from dealing with a problem.</p> <p>Far from being comforted by conspiracies, those who already believe them feel distressed or resentful towards the ruling elites who perpetrate the problems. This myth also contradicts the idea that conspiracy theories make people paranoid (<a href="">Myth #37</a>).</p> <p><a name="Myth_.236:_Conspiracy_theories_violate_Popper.27s_rule_of_falsifiability" id="Myth_.236:_Conspiracy_theories_violate_Popper.27s_rule_of_falsifiability"></a></p> <h2>Myth #6: Conspiracy theories violate Popper's rule of falsifiability</h2> <p>Karl Popper's rule of scientific falsifiability is useful to discard many bogus theories, especially those relying on pseudoscience. However, groupthink and predetermined conclusions are problems that every researcher has to face. Conspiracy theorists are no exceptions; they also need to avoid those pitfalls.</p> <p>Detractors who raise Popper's rule claim that conspiracy theorists justify lack of evidence by saying that the evidence is covered up by the government. This is an appeal to ignorance fallacy and it should be avoided. However, such arguments are mostly seen in casual debates from people who have not conducted thorough research on the subject and have run out of arguments. In addition, while this particular argument may be unfalsifiable, just the fact that it is sometimes used does not invalidate conspiracy theories on the whole as unfalsifiable.</p> <p>Some of the claims dismissed by Popper's test are not actual conspiracy theories, yet are used to judge conspiracy theories in general. An example of such ideas would be existential claims (as explained in the introduction). In other cases, claims may actually be speculative and not claimed to be factual.</p> <p>It is sensible to speculate on why a government would be interested in keeping evidence secret - when it can be proven that they are withholding evidence. In these cases, conspiracy theories are acceptable, as a conspiracy of secrecy has taken place. It may also be sensible to speculate that more evidence will be uncovered as more whistle blowers come forward, when they realise that enough people have caught on for them to present their stories. However, contrarily to popular myth, conspiracy theorists do not use this to 'prove' their theories, as they usually are backed by evidence.</p> <p>Obviously, for any evidence to be valid it must fit all legal and scientific definitions of what it means to be "evidence." Due to the fact that a conflict of interest exists with individuals in government not being willing to expose or prosecute themselves or their associates, it is reasonable to assume that any small amount of legitimate evidence of wrongdoing which has "slipped through the cracks" should be reason for further investigation by an impartial third party, rather than an investigation potentially run by the perpetrators themselves.</p> <p>Legitimate evidence that exists is often not given the necessary attention until long after the crimes were committed, giving the damage from the crimes much time to escalate past the point of being correctable. Given such a scenario, it is the nature of the institutions rather than that of the accusations which is the cause for the catch-22.</p> <p><a name="Myth_.237:_Governments_are_unable_to_cover_up_their_conspiracies" id="Myth_.237:_Governments_are_unable_to_cover_up_their_conspiracies"></a></p> <h2>Myth #7: Governments are unable to cover up their conspiracies</h2> <p>This is flatly untrue. There are many examples of government projects that involved thousands of people who did not speak out, including the Manhattan Project.</p> <p>Even if taken at face value, the people who attempt to blow the whistle usually do so because the government was unable to cover up its activities, but are often silenced or ignored by the media. The people who do take them seriously are usually marginalised and discredited on grounds of other myths, such as the one holding that whistleblowers would be killed by the government (<a href="">Myth #18</a>). The result is that of a circular logic loop that makes real questions impossible.</p> <p>This claim is also based on a misconception regarding the possible actors in a conspiracy: incompetent politicians and bureaucrats are very different from highly trained military intel and determined corporations.</p> <p>Contrarily to popular beliefs, conspiracy theorists do not view the government as an omnipotent, omnipresent and infallible entity. In fact, a lot of their evidence comes from slip-ups or failures by elites to cover up their crimes, but people refuse to believe it because they are conditioned into the circular belief that the same evidence being exposed to the public would have been exposed to the public.</p> <p>Even in the event that some of the cover-up falls apart, governments exercise damage control in order to allow only part of the conspiracy to be exposed. For example, the fact the so many people now believe there was a 9-11 conspiracy is evidence that any cover-up has not been completely successful. To say that the government could not be involved because no whistleblowers have come forward to admit involvement is essentially flawed in two distinct ways:</p> <p>Firstly, it assumes that any guilty parties would incriminate themselves, something that is ludicrous to assume, knowing the penalty for treason (see <a href="">Myth #38</a>).</p> <p>Secondly, a false dichotomy is erected, stating that, without whistleblowers and leaks, the coverup is 'too perfect', therefore the absence of whistleblowers is the absence of conspiracy, when a logical reason for the absence of whistleblowers has already been provided.</p> <p><a name="Myth_.238:_Conspiracies_would_be_quickly_exposed_by_the_media" id="Myth_.238:_Conspiracies_would_be_quickly_exposed_by_the_media"></a></p> <h2>Myth #8: Conspiracies would be quickly exposed by the media</h2> <p>In a society where the media is free and the society is open and democratic, this would seem to be an appropriate assumption. However, many societies that claim to have a free press actually have a corporate-controlled press, infiltrated by state intelligence agents. The elite that controls the media has the advantage to cover up its own crimes or protect their cronies while pretending to keep the rulers in check.</p> <p>Conspiracies are only exposed in medias that are independent and not controlled by the ruling elite. People are often made to believe that the society they live in is open and democratic, even if the opposite is true. This illusion plays a large role in leading people to assume that conspiracies would not happen because they would be exposed, which is what conspirators rely upon to commit their crimes without being exposed.</p> <p>When confronted with whistleblowers, the media either refuses to cover their story, only cover the least damaging aspects of the story, or only expose minor scandals to maintain the illusion of a press doing its job as an investigator. Conspiracies are often too complex to be covered by the modern day 30 second-per-story summaries that masquerade as television news.</p> <p>Revealing a conspiracy would endanger a journalist's job or freedom, and damage relations between the authorities and the corporate media, as well as making the population suspicious and possibly uncontrollable. It is easier to cover-up difficult subjects.</p> <p>In general, establishment medias tend to scorn conspiracy theories, whether they have substance or not. This may be motivated by ego: if a journalist only received information from an official propaganda outlet or PR department, and this information was later disproven, it would show the public how bad the journalistic research was, and those organisations would then suffer a loss of credibility.</p> <p>In the cases of elitist groups, it is worth noting that they are often owned or controlled by the members of the same societies whose importance they trivialise. Such a state of affairs makes it easy for the political elite to hide their actions in plain view, as the media distracts most people from them by giving them little coverage, and spins them for the people who do notice.</p>