Jump to content

The art of disinformation.


Guest Stephen Turner
 Share

Recommended Posts

So Duane how many of those "25 ways" apply to Jack's post on this thread or his posts in general? What about your posts such when you without provocation call your opponents "idiots"?

These '25 ways', and similar lists, are, to put it mildly, 'daft'. They contribute nothing of consequence. They are used liberally by proponents and antagonists to 'prove' points, and consequently prove nothing.

I agree. As long as the lists are long enough and many of the items on them ambiguous enough they be used to "prove" anything a proponent wants about his or her opponents. And like Duane they can choose to simply ignore when such items apply to them or their "allies"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So Duane how many of those "25 ways" apply to Jack's post on this thread or his posts in general? What about your posts such when you without provocation call your opponents "idiots"?

"without provocation " ?? ... You have to be joking !

Disinfo artist Colby ..... As long as you continue to pretend that you can't discern the difference between DEFENSIVE BLOWS from OFFENSIVE BLOWS , then your post replies to me , and also to Jack , will be nothing but dishonest garbage .

The 25 Rules of Disinformation only apply to those who spread it around as profusely as you do ... Not to people who are attempting to expose government lies , scams , conspiracies and cover-ups .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Any chance we could actually get back on topic?

To those who say that governments wouldn't do this I have some news for you, they already have. The two examples, historically proven, that I gave in the opening post,the Massive FBI infiltration of the SDS, and stay behind/Gladio are simply two of many I could have sited, their aim, Infiltration, destabilisation, discreditation, and to simply claim, with no evidence offered, that these tactics/strategies are not employed is just nieve. I should say though,Most of the "way out" stuff is just that, posted no doubt from a rubber room, with the internet taking the place of crayons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I should say though,Most of the "way out" stuff is just that, posted no doubt from a rubber room, with the internet taking the place of crayons. "

And I should say that you have once again proven why you have no business being a moderator of anything .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Duane how many of those "25 ways" apply to Jack's post on this thread or his posts in general? What about your posts such when you without provocation call your opponents "idiots"?

"without provocation " ?? ... You have to be joking !

Disinfo artist Colby ..... As long as you continue to pretend that you can't discern the difference between DEFENSIVE BLOWS from OFFENSIVE BLOWS , then your post replies to me , and also to Jack , will be nothing but dishonest garbage .

I kid you not. Explain to me how this comment of yours qualifies as a “defensive blow”

Jack ... I can't believe that you are still wasting your valuable time posting on a forum where those who defend Apollo play such ridiculous games .

You remember that old expression don't you ? .... "Never argue with an idiot . They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience ."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=98416

The 25 Rules of Disinformation only apply to those who spread it around as profusely as you do ... Not to people who are attempting to expose government lies , scams , conspiracies and cover-ups .

So when Jack and you and others who agree with you engage in such tactics they are OK (“don’t apply”) but when those who disagree you supposedly do so it is reprehensible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
"I should say though,Most of the "way out" stuff is just that, posted no doubt from a rubber room, with the internet taking the place of crayons. "

And I should say that you have once again proven why you have no business being a moderator of anything .

Duane, why would you feel that what i posted applied to you :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I should say though,Most of the "way out" stuff is just that, posted no doubt from a rubber room, with the internet taking the place of crayons. "

And I should say that you have once again proven why you have no business being a moderator of anything .

Duane, why would you feel that what i posted applied to you :lol:

I didn't feel that it applied to me ... I was merely pointing out the fact that you have no business or qualifications to judge anyone's internet post comments as having come from a "rubber room " , replacing "crayons" with the internet .... and in doing so , you have proven once again that you lack the ability to be impartial or open minded , and therefore have no business being a moderator .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
"I should say though,Most of the "way out" stuff is just that, posted no doubt from a rubber room, with the internet taking the place of crayons. "

And I should say that you have once again proven why you have no business being a moderator of anything .

Duane, why would you feel that what i posted applied to you :lol:

I didn't feel that it applied to me ... I was merely pointing out the fact that you have no business or qualifications to judge anyone's internet post comments as having come from a "rubber room " , replacing "crayons" with the internet .... and in doing so , you have proven once again that you lack the ability to be impartial or open minded , and therefore have no business being a moderator .

Erm, lets see. Would 20 years working as a Psychologist count. Once again, if you think me unfit to moderate this forum please make your comments known to the Administrators, and stop clogging up my thread with your off topic howls of protest.

BTW, when's the last time you actually posted any research here. Your present position apears to be that of a crutch to a lame man. Perhaps you might like to try a rebutal of my original post, if that lies within your capabilities of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Duane how many of those "25 ways" apply to Jack's post on this thread or his posts in general? What about your posts such when you without provocation call your opponents "idiots"?

"without provocation " ?? ... You have to be joking !

Disinfo artist Colby ..... As long as you continue to pretend that you can't discern the difference between DEFENSIVE BLOWS from OFFENSIVE BLOWS , then your post replies to me , and also to Jack , will be nothing but dishonest garbage .

I kid you not. Explain to me how this comment of yours qualifies as a “defensive blow”

Jack ... I can't believe that you are still wasting your valuable time posting on a forum where those who defend Apollo play such ridiculous games .

You remember that old expression don't you ? .... "Never argue with an idiot . They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience ."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=98416

The 25 Rules of Disinformation only apply to those who spread it around as profusely as you do ... Not to people who are attempting to expose government lies , scams , conspiracies and cover-ups .

So when Jack and you and others who agree with you engage in such tactics they are OK (“don’t apply”) but when those who disagree you supposedly do so it is reprehensible?

Thank you for posting that ... You just proved my point ... I posted that in a thread where several of you had all ganged up on Jack again with your typical tactics of insulting and attacking the messenger because you don't like the message .

I was merely coming to Jack's DEFENSE ! ... Thus , DEFENSIVE BLOW .

I don't remember where either one of us ever insulted anyone here without plenty of provocation ... Unlike you and your pals , who always take the offense and attack certain members of internet forums with the mob mentality of immature , hateful bullies .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I should say though,Most of the "way out" stuff is just that, posted no doubt from a rubber room, with the internet taking the place of crayons. "

And I should say that you have once again proven why you have no business being a moderator of anything .

Duane, why would you feel that what i posted applied to you :lol:

I didn't feel that it applied to me ... I was merely pointing out the fact that you have no business or qualifications to judge anyone's internet post comments as having come from a "rubber room " , replacing "crayons" with the internet .... and in doing so , you have proven once again that you lack the ability to be impartial or open minded , and therefore have no business being a moderator .

Erm, lets see. Would 20 years working as a Psychologist count. Once again, if you think me unfit to moderate this forum please make your comments known to the Administrators, and stop clogging up my thread with your off topic howls of protest.

BTW, when's the last time you actually posted any research here. Your present position apears to be that of a crutch to a lame man. Perhaps you might like to try a rebutal of my original post, if that lies within your capabilities of course.

If you have worked 20 years as a psychologist , then you have done quite a dis-service to the world of psychology .

I have no interest in your original thread , just the way you and your pals never had any interest in mine or Jack's , except to turn them into threads of dishonest mind games and character assassinataions .

It would seem that your real purpose for being here is to insult and then hopefully silence those whom you don't like or whom you disagree with ... And that is one of the reasons you have no business attempting to moderate ... You obviously don't even comprehend the meaning of the word .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Right, as Duane has admitted that he had no interest in my original thread, hopefully that is the last of his drama queen act. Now, can we please get back on topic, I for one would like someone to offer a rebutal to my theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Any chance we could actually get back on topic?

To those who say that governments wouldn't do this I have some news for you, they already have. The two examples, historically proven, that I gave in the opening post,the Massive FBI infiltration of the SDS, and stay behind/Gladio are simply two of many I could have sited, their aim, Infiltration, destabilisation, discreditation, and to simply claim, with no evidence offered, that these tactics/strategies are not employed is just nieve. I should say though,Most of the "way out" stuff is just that, posted no doubt from a rubber room, with the internet taking the place of crayons.

Just a reminder of what was being said before the "keepers of the truth" showed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the 1960s the American SDS was literally riddled with FBI agents and informers, these Guys were always the wildest, most out there members, urging others in the group to ever more extreeme political acts, usually involving violence. The aim was twofold, 1 discredit the SDS in the eyes of wider society, 2, pervert its original, peaceful aims. This is a powerful and distructive strategy, and, in a essentially open group, almost impossible to defend against.

Within days of 911, rumours and conjecture were spreading like weeds over the internet, and certain newspapers who seem to specialise in damage limitation and left gatekeeping. A work colleague told me, less than two days after the event, that he knew for a fact that all Jewish workers in the Towers had been told not to go to work that day, another, within the same timespan, that it was obvious that a missile, not a plane, had impacted with the Pentagon. When I asked them where they wrer getting this "information" I was told "its all over the net"

In my own research around 911, I have often come across similar wild, totally unsubstantiated claims, many would appear to be the ravings of unhinged minds, "there were no arab hijackers" " the planes were a 3d image" " UFOs can be seen observing the carnage" etc, etc etc. Madness right? or disinformationists taring anybody who wants to look deeper into possible Government insider knowledge, with the old Wo Wo brush.

OK back on track, as requested. The SDS was also significantly influenced by the SWP youth wing.

COINTELPRO-INFIL SWP was a factor.

Primarily this was to stir up fights within the SDS and to seed disinfo and to provoke 'radical' actions and infighting that would justify authoritarian crackdowns.

The SDS was one of the wiser student movements and were quite aware of a lot of what was going on as can be seen in many underground publications of those days.

In the mainstream media, and Nixon's desperate continuing search for the destruction of the student movement and the hounding of leaders and draft dodgers while the Viet question with the broadening of it with the carpet bombings and the desperate attempts to destroy the Ho Chih Minh Trail, the bombing of Cambodia, the Cleveland, Jackson and Kent state massacres, the disruption of scholarships to students, the CIA campus drives and the YAF actions and the selective NSA leadership-CIA ties revelations all served to polarise and also to politisize otherwise moderates.

Then there were the days of rage, Chicago, the Weathermen and Manson.

SDS-INFIL was a major aspect of COINTELPRO with many documents supporting it.

They (the FBI) introduced a destabilising influence in what was really one of the tighter student organisations. (Bruce Jones of the later Costa Rica Contra Drug infamy, (and SOF publisher Brown pal (associated with elemnets of interest in the Kennedy assassination) ), flirted with the SDS, he also was a leading user of new tech like computers in his actions).

They (the SDS) did in large part survive nationally, in spite of the deep localised splits, and were very effective in the anti war movement.

Many of its leaders went on to other things, in a number of directions, activist and opportunistic. A number of them, with Fourth International (Trotskyist) affiliations, partook in deep entry (deep cover) industrial actions. Others opted for degrees of 'respectabilty', which in some instances (like Jones) makes one question their true agendas, oppotrunists or agency assets?

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...