Twenty-Five Rules of
Disinformation - The Politicians Credo
Courtesy of American Patriot Friends
Network and Walt July
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on
situation) rules are generally not directly within the
ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These
rules are generally used more directly by those at the
leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal
conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
- Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of
what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a
public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it
didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
- Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key
issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used
to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise
sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How
dare you!" gambit.
- Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by
describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as
mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms
mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method
works especially well with a silent press, because the only
way the public can learn of the facts are through such
"arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with
the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor"
which can have no basis in fact.
- Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of
your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to
make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either
make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your
interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation,
or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify
their significance and destroy them in a way which appears
to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while
actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
- Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This
is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy,
though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.
Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks",
"right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists",
"conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists",
"religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the
same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
- Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of
your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off
before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any
answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to
-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new
identities can be called upon without having to explain
criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other
attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any
subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's
- Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could
so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden
personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues
and forces the accuser on the defensive.
- Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate
yourself with authority and present your argument with
enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one
who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing
issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
- Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument
is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain
or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix
well for maximum effect.
- Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative
of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high
visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be
or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen,
have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans.
Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground
uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original
charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need
to address current issues -- so much the better where the
opponent is or was involved with the original source.
- Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a
minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road"
and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in
hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the
opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply
greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can
reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this
can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and
"owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious
- Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall
umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude
of players and events, paint the entire affair as too
complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the
matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without
having to address the actual issues.
- Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the
issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive
logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.
- Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring
opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy
which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
- Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires
creative thinking unless the crime was planned with
contingency conclusions in place.
- Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist,
it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
- Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of
the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the
discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes
of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This
works especially well with companions who can "argue" with
you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in
order to avoid discussing more key issues.
- Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you
can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and
draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make
them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render
their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you
avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even
if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can
further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive
they are to criticism".
- Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This
is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of
what material may be presented by an opponent in public
forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that
is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but
not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is
known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder
weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may
require you to categorically deny and be critical of media
or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are
acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government
or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
- False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts
or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent
presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues
or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was
designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts
cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
- Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other
empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your
benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues
without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and
testimony are required to be secret when properly handled.
For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can
insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the
evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent
investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this
technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can
also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a
victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially
- Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s),
group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones
willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative,
or social research or testimony which concludes favorably.
In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do
- Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem
to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to
prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such
as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as
such) to distract the multitudes.
- Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail,
consider removing opponents from circulation by some
definitive solution so that the need to address issues is
removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and
detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by
release of blackmail information, or merely by proper
intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
- Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise
overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too
hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen