Invisible Warriors Discussion
[ Home | Contents |
Search ]
Suppressing
the Truth
From:
rovaan
Date: 5/30/2005
Time: 5:00:45 PM
Remote Name: 192.168.9.14
Comments
Thirteen Techniques
for Truth Suppression by David Martin Strong, credible allegations of high-level
criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an
effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of
these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere
token opposition party. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it
didn't happen. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "how dare
you?" gambit. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better
yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is
still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through
"rumors." Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspect of
the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors
and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and
fanciful alike. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist,"
"nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and
of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open
debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. Impugn motives. Attempt to
marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really
interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or
are out to make money. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham
opposition can be very useful. Dismiss the charges as "old news." Come
half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or
"taking the limited hang-out route." This way, you create the
impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless,
less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the
embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken.
Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately
unknowable. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With
thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example:
We have a completely free press. If they know of evidence that the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City
bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no
prior knowledge by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the
likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press that would report it. Require the
skeptics to solve the crime completely. Change the subject. This technique
includes creating and/or reporting a distraction. http://www.brasscheck.com/martin.html
Last changed: October 12, 2008