Author Topic: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)  (Read 16948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« on: April 16, 2009, 02:18:51 pm »
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
http://benfrank.net/patriots/forums/national/how_to_spot_a_spy
Submitted by BenFranklin2006 on Thu, 2006-02-16 06:05.


One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

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

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

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

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

"You're dividing the movement."

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

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

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

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

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

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

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

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

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

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

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
 Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

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

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

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

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

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

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

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

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

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

http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-spot-cointelpro-agents.html
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2009, 02:20:09 pm »
The Democratic Party Infiltrated: A Personal Account
http://benfrank.net/patriots/news/alaska/the_democratic_party_infiltrated


This is what happened in the 2004 Democratic Primary in Alaska.

My wife and I were newbies to the political process, we had never been to a caucus before, never been involved in politics other than casting a vote every few years. This time we were watching closely, and we became aware that John Kerry was a Republican with a Democratic nameplate. We saw Howard Dean collect $40 million in anti-war money, then turn around and support 40,000 more troops Kerry. Whatever happened to fighting for what you believe in? How is it possible that we had a Presidential election between two pro-war candidates? Why didn't America have a real choice, ie Bush vs a Dem that would end the war?

This story outlines how the DLC stole Alaska for Kerry. Hopefully my experience will help others to be prepared to expose the status-quo stooges in their state.

1. Discourage Participation
In Alaska there was no primary vote, but instead local caucuses. In Colorado, the local caucuses were held in private homes, like mini-neighborhood parties. This seems like it would encourage participation- way to go Colorado. For some reason, Alaska's Democratic Party chose to hold their caucuses in a central location, ie we had to drive 90 miles to attend. For a population of 15,000(?) 19 people attended our caucus.

It was held on a beautiful Saturday in Spring (after a long winter, most people would not want to waste such a beautiful day indoors). The day of the caucus was on Saturday, March 20th- the first day of Spring Break, and the anniversary of the war.

As any Alaskan knows, during Spring Break there is a mass exodus south- Hawaii, Mexico, etc. Why would the Dems schedule the meeting on the first day of Spring Break, why not the week before?

2. Misdirect
The Democratic Party of Alaska repeatedly gave out the incorrect address of the caucus, telling us the event would be in the wrong town. We called several times and were told the wrong answer every time. We finally talked to another Democrat who told us the correct location, and she said, ~ "Are they still giving out that information, I've called them several times already to inform them of the correct location."

The day the Dems picked for the caucus was also the anniversary of the 1st day of the war. So we had our local "anti-war leaders" convince a hundred people or more to stay in town and hold an anti-war march. Rather than voting for the anti-war candidate, many Dems were fooled into attending yet another pointless march. (Note to Dems Everywhere: the 'anti-war leaders' in my hometown are pro-establishment stooges, are yours too?)

3. Waste Time
At the Caucus itself, all 19 of us had driven for more than an hour on this beautiful Saturday to debate the merits of Kerry/Dean/Kucinich. Rather than spend the afternoon discussing the war, health care, etc... we were told to sit down and listen to a special speaker. A candidate for the local borough (county) assembly was to give us a presentation. Ok- we're all polite so we sat down to listen... and then he went on, and on, and on.... talking about his Arby's restaurants, yadda yadda yadda. After close to 2 hrs of this bullshit, i was getting irate. Ok, so he finally finished, now there's another speaker, some lady for Tony Knowles. So we had to listen to another spiel- we already knew Tony since he was governor, but still we had to sit through another 45 minutes or so of BS. Looking back I realize this was all by design, but at the time I had no clue...

So finally it was our turn to debate... each candidate had one person stand up and speak for them. It turns out that 16 of the 19 attending were Strong Kucinich supporters (End the War, Health Care for All), but none of us got to speak for Kucinich. Instead we had another Kucinich 'supporter' stand up to speak, even though this guy wasn't in our district. He wasn't going to vote- why was he even there? So Joe stands up and talks about why everyone should vote for Kucinich- 'because they were old drinking buddies in college and he's a really good guy.' HUH?

After that we had 15 minutes to talk amongst ourselves, it was time to vote. Huh? We've been here sitting through crap for hours, but we only get 15 minutes to actually talk about the issues? Yep.

Even with all the time wasting, our caucus voted 16-3 Kucinich over Kerry. If there were a real discussion, it would've been 19-0, ie 100% to End the War.

4. The State Convention
At the State Convention it got really weird. Once again we were forced to listen to hours of speeches. There is no time to discuss the issues, just sit down and listen to one speaker after another (anyone remember the 'pig in the snake' guy?)

During one short break, I went up to the main table and asked the DLC leader Scott (?) if there would be some time to debate the issues. He said no, the schedule was tight, there's no time for that kind of thing. Huh? Again, I was a newbie, I had no idea that this whole event was staged to prevent participation and dialogue.

Finally at 4pm, it was time to vote. We're told to split up Kucinich Delegates on one side, Kerry on the other, and the 20 Undecided in the middle. We're given 15 minutes to try to convince the undecideds to vote with us.

There's Joe again, the Kucinich 'leader'- does he stand up and lead the charge to convince people to vote with us to end the war? No, he tells the Kucinich delegates to gather around and lets talk about who's going to the national convention in Boston. Huh? So we listen to him for about 10 seconds, then left to go and try to convince the others to join us and vote to end the war.

So we go over and are talking to the Undecided delegates to vote with us, End the War, Universal Health Care, etc... we've got flyers and facts and we're talking up all the reasons why Kerry is a Repub and Kucinich's policies are for real.... the Kerry people sat their silently- they had nothing. Not one of them tried to convince the Undecideds to vote for Kerry, because they really didn't know why... only that the TV told them to.

The race was literally neck and neck, and whoever won the undecided vote, won the state. So we're over there talking to people when this guy Ian stands up and says, "we've made a deal, if all the Undecideds would follow me over here" and he leads them OUT OF THE ROOM - which is strictly against the rules. (All delegates are supposed to remain in the main hall until the vote is over.)

So he leads them into a tiny room across the hall, and we're like, what are you doing people, "you can't just make a deal then vote for kerry." What was the deal? Some 18yr high school student wanted to go to Boston, and if all the Undecideds come and vote for Kerry, then she can go as one of the delegates- good deal eh?

What was really strange is I was talking to one lady from the Mountain View area of Anchorage, and she said she had to vote her conscience, for the poor kids in her neighborhood. So after outlining some key points, etc... she started walking with us towards the Kucinich side, then some other lady swoops in, puts her around the gal and says come with me to the Kerry room... and she was whisked away, seemingly against her own will. It was really bizarre- as if the Kerry lady had some of that "trust perfume" on... I know it sounds crazy, but this is what happened.

So the vote was counted. Not in public, but in secret. Kerry's supporters were in the tiny room across the hall, Kucinich supporters were in the large room. One teacher suggested to Joe (the Kucinich Leader) why not have everybody get in groups of ten- easy to count. Joe: No, no, no.... he had a hat, everyone get in a line and put in a little yellow piece of paper. But why- the teacher's idea was great let's do that. No. Then Joe counted the little pieces of paper, and went up to the stage to tell DLCer Scott our count (in secret). Then the Kerry guys came and conferred... it seemed as if they were making up the numbers to match the supposed total.

So then came the ratification of the vote- I stood up and said we should have a re-vote. What kind of democracy is it for some Kerry goon to 'make a deal' so some 18yr old can go to Boston? I suggested a re-vote. Instantly a minder came over to me and told me to pipe down, Joe came over too, 'we did our best'... No you didn't asshole.

I should have pushed the minder out of my face and continued raising good points, but instead i talked to her for a sec, and that gave Scott the opportunity he needed to say, "all in favor, aye" and that was it. Everybody started leaving for dinner.

Oh, I almost forgot, I said to the crowd, "Why did we sit here for hours of speeches and then have only 15 minutes to talk about the issues. Why can't we debate longer?" To which Scott replied, "the banquet hall is booked and we have to clear out so the Hotel can clean up." Huh? Why would the Democratic Party schedule their State Convention like this? Why did they leave so little time for discussion of the issues?

As this was all unfolding, I didn't really 'get it', but upon retrospect, I see that it was all planned. The Alaska Democratic Party has been infiltrated by status-quo goons that intentionally limited the debate in every way possible.

Even with all that, the official vote was 51%-49% Kerry over Kucinich, but if you ask me, Kucinich won hands down. There should have been a lawsuit against the Dems that broke the rules at the state party, having delegates go into a separate room, counting the vote in secret- it was a scam! If it wasn't for DLC stooges like Scott, Ian and Joe- the rightful winner of Alaska's 2004 Democratic State Convention would have been Dennis Kucinich.

Of course the national Dems have been co-opted as well. Proof of that was the Boston Convention.


Why would they have people travel thousands of miles to attend the Convention, then schedule it from 4-10pm everyday. Why did they pass out free drinks to the delegates, get them sloshed then wake them up at 8am for pointless meetings?

Did you watch the convention on C-span every day? I did. It was a sick joke. There was ZERO discussion of the issues, just one person after another talking about how great Kerry was-

At 4pm on Wednesday, right as people were filing in to the hall, with most of the Delegates still waiting in the security check line, Bill Richardson stood up and asked to approve the party platform- any objections (you could hear someone yelling in the back of the room), he says, ok- approved. That was the pro-war, Republican-Lite platform- approved with zero debate from the delegates.

Where was Kucinich and the anti-war crowd? PDA launched this same week, and they we're leading the anti-war crowd in speeches far away from the Convention center. Why weren't they trying to create a real debate inside the convention hall? What do you think?

For more on the Boston Convention, see this article from a Minnesota Delegate.
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=2305


Again, I write this hoping to help others be on the lookout for similar tactics. If they try to tell you to sit through hours of pointless speeches, tell 'em to shove it. Demand a Real Debate on the issues.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2009, 02:29:02 pm »
25 Tactics for Truth Suppression
Tactics used by disinformation agents stooges for the elite

http://benfrank.net/disinfo/

1. Hear no Evil   
2. Incredulous
3. Rumormonger
4. Straw Man
5. Ridicule
6. Hit & Run
7. ? Motives
8. Authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Old News
11. Fake Confession
12. Too Complex
13. False Logic   
14. Not Enough
15. Twist Facts   
16. Lose Evidence
17. Change Subject
18. Antagonize   
19. Ignore Proof
20. False Evidence
21. Subvert
22. New Truth
23. O.J.   
24. Silence Opp.
25. Vanish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
1. 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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2. 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.

Example: "How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint."

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become incredulous and indignant)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
3. 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 which 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.

"You can't prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that Flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around the Internet for months."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a supportive statement by a Congressman who has not actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4. 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.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking Flight 800, a straw man is used. "If these exist, the public has not seen them."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 - use a straw man)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

5. 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.

Example: "You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is a well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6. 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 viewpoint.

Example: "This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters." Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - hit and run)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7. 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.

Example: "With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutia" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

"You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals have ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke authority)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9. 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.

Example: "Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10. 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.

Example: "Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

11. 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 issues.

Example: "Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy feeling it makes us, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

12. 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.

Example: "I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and on, and on, and on. It's hopeless. Give it up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have no solution)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

13. 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.

Example: "The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story -- often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has the media reported the CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony "confession" by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 - Alice in Wonderland logic)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Example: "Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Example: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the Warren Report.

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the magic bullet was invented. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 - invoke authority)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

Example: "You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't you accept the Police reports?" True, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it -- all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up or other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention based on highly suspicious matters which themselves tend to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

17. 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.

Example: "There were no CIA drugs and no drug money was laundered through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election because Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform." Response. "You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on..." One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one...

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response -- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane unless you can provide concrete facts to support your contentions of relevance. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

18. 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".

Example: "You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel." After a drawing an emotional response: "Ohhh... I do seemed to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help..."

Proper response: "You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

19. 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.

Example: "All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage from Flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!"

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Only YOUR are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

20. 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.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy "confession", since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination.

Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time... You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics.

Your information is known to have designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose "Solidarist confession" was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 - false evidence)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

21. 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 an 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 closed.

Example: According to one OK bombing Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

22. 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 so authoritatively.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such thing as Mind Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are well equipped to fight this tactic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

23. 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.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (any day now) to talk about -- keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the whole gun control thing?

Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the "news flap" or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

24. 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.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to Flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.

Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

25. 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.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play as part of a deliberate cover up.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven distinct traits:

1) They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Their disdain for "conspiracy theorists" and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their presentation. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the "image" and are hot and cold with respect to emotions they pretend to have and the more calm or normal communications which are not emotional. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to "act their role in type" as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth.

7) There is also a tendacy to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline barndoor77

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,026
Re: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2009, 07:47:54 pm »
Awesome:

I have been strongly of the belief we as freedom loving citizens need to start our own CIA (Civilian Intelligence Agency) - and I would strongly argue under the following logic:

  - 40 / 60 years ago the intelligence agencies worked somewhat on behalf of the people and the government.  Today they seldom work in the interest of the public at all - but in the interest of the special groups (whoever their controllers are).
  - Because of this lack of the government to protect its own people other than to in effect 'protect its harem for parasitation purposes' - the balance of power has dramatically tilted in the favor of big business and big government.
  - The only way for the citizens to counter it (of all nations) to restore this balance of power is for them to become systemically informed.  However that means training people in the process of research and investigation.

An army of investigators and a systemic group can accomplish amazing things.

The combined knowledge would benefit all of mankind, instead of feeding the eye at the top of the pyramid.

The dissemination of truth is the most freedom causing thing.  No one never need to resort to violence ever - they just have to use the truth - it can dissolve armies on contact and cause dialectic feeding conflicts to simply melt away.

The previous postings would make a great section in a future training manual.

Offline skeptic101

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 344
Re: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2009, 08:49:03 pm »
Spies are in the minority, but it's amazing on the amount of "Patriots" whom suck-up the Cointelpro Directives and pretend they're some kind of vision of a genuine and effective Patriot community.

COINTELPRO DIRECTIVES

1.  Make dates-prophecy of some impending event, like Y2K, a Rapture and the coming 2012--this will cause people to wait and do nothing, as they rely on the date to fix the problem and not themselves to fix it.  This stall tactic will create burnout to lessen the numbers and intensity.

2.  Plug the "time isn't right" to take action because not enough sheep are awakened, and that the WWW or whatever media platform will deliver them from evil and the movement with the right amount of money and people will snowball into millions. Post, Post, read, wait & listen will be the mantra--stay in house, don't come out "just yet."

3.  Always hint at a possible political solution (Ron Paul) that will save the day and we won't need to do hard work, the Republic will come as a feather bed.

4.  Have your movement hinge on one personality, no real hierachy beyond that.  Listen to him/her like it was the word of God.

5.  Be paranoid and negative and not progressive and hopeful.  Stay Online.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« Reply #5 on: July 16, 2009, 09:39:40 pm »
Spies are in the minority, but it's amazing on the amount of "Patriots" whom suck-up the Cointelpro Directives and pretend they're some kind of vision of a genuine and effective Patriot community.

COINTELPRO DIRECTIVES

1.  Make dates-prophecy of some impending event, like Y2K, a Rapture and the coming 2012--this will cause people to wait and do nothing, as they rely on the date to fix the problem and not themselves to fix it.  This stall tactic will create burnout to lessen the numbers and intensity.

Good point, those are debunked in at least 4 rooms (false flag, occult symbolism, bible thumping, and this room.

Quote
2.  Plug the "time isn't right" to take action because not enough sheep are awakened, and that the WWW or whatever media platform will deliver them from evil and the movement with the right amount of money and people will snowball into millions. Post, Post, read, wait & listen will be the mantra--stay in house, don't come out "just yet."

Excellent point, that is the Rothschild/Rockefeller agenda in a nutshell exposed ad naseum in at least 2 boards including "Rothschild/Rockefeller infiltrates the truth movement"

Quote
3.  Always hint at a possible political solution (Ron Paul) that will save the day and we won't need to do hard work, the Republic will come as a feather bed.


Excellent point again, but Palin, Obama, and Huckabee better fit that absurdity, Ron Paul actually does not like lazy "irresponsible for their own freedom" individuals. You may want to read some information in http://ronpaullibrary.org so that will not continue to subject readers to complete absurdities again. thanks

Quote
4.  Have your movement hinge on one personality, no real hierachy beyond that.  Listen to him/her like it was the word of God.

Good point of what to avoid! Make sure to double and triple check anything said by anyone.  Make sure also not to falsely put this issue onto some personalities that promote the opposite of this otherwise you probably will totally discredit yourself and cease to be effective in assisting people in waking up.

Quote
5.  Be paranoid and negative and not progressive and hopeful.  Stay Online.

Yup, again people like Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley, many members of this forum, campaign for liberty, we are change, bermas, etc. definitely helped you see the insanity of that. thanks for riding their coat tails to show the need of staying positive!

EXCELLENT POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline lulzbomb1

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2010, 09:52:58 pm »
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
http://benfrank.net/patriots/forums/national/how_to_spot_a_spy
Submitted by BenFranklin2006 on Thu, 2006-02-16 06:05.


One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

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

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

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

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

"You're dividing the movement."

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

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

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

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

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

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

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

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

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

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

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
 Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

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

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

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

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

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

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

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

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

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

http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-spot-cointelpro-agents.html

OP
Are you 100% sure your talking about government agents ,and not internet trolls . 
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Troll

mayb

  • Guest
Re: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« Reply #7 on: November 28, 2010, 05:16:16 am »
I love reading 'warfare' literature lol! It's like the modern day Sun Tzu. But anyway, the problem with such literature is it can make everyone paranoid of everyone. While these manuals educate unknowing persons to the knowledge of design, the same manuals can be used by ANYONE -- even the people who are doing good things.

Technique is Technique. And people (IMO) need to learn not only to identify technique in action, but to not let technique SCARE them into resisting someone with method, technique and strategy. Strategy itself is not evil. Children are strategic, babies even. It's actually the very nature of thinking. It can be alarming. What's important is what the technique hopes to accomplish, and the benevolence of the person enacting method.


Offline Aoss

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308
    • If Everyone Knew
Re: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« Reply #8 on: November 28, 2010, 07:39:14 am »
But anyway, the problem with such literature is it can make everyone paranoid of everyone.

100% agreed.  It actually hurts us more when some troll is being accused of cointelpro/shill/etc. because then it just makes us look like a bunch of paranoid retards and the troll looks even better.

Every troll isn't a government agent.  Trolls like to troll people who are passionate about a subject, that's why trolls love to go after religious people, Apple fanboys, etc.

[Wow I said troll like 20 times in this post]

mayb

  • Guest
Re: How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2010, 12:16:23 pm »
100% agreed.  It actually hurts us more when some troll is being accused of cointelpro/shill/etc. because then it just makes us look like a bunch of paranoid retards and the troll looks even better.

Every troll isn't a government agent.  Trolls like to troll people who are passionate about a subject, that's why trolls love to go after religious people, Apple fanboys, etc.

[Wow I said troll like 20 times in this post]

I actually think reading manifestos is IMPORTANT as is keeping up not only with the current affairs of those interested in, but those against. Love and hate are not really separate things. They're just the positive/negative expression of the one force: passion. Usually, the people I find to be trollish are not that passionate. They're more neurotic (which can appear passionate to someone without a good eye). They don't really even hate what they appear to hate. It seems to stem from fear or rejection, not genuine disgust. They're like moths to a flame in that regard. I don't think they can help being attracted to passionate people.

Still, I have a genuine concern for people that have an interest in life and freedom. Fear. Most it seems aren't even aware of their own psychology. My dad always said to me when I was young, the first friend you have to make is with yourself. That sounded pretty nutzy at the time, but as an adult it makes sense. A person cal alarm themselves 100x faster than someone else ever can. Paranoia can become a disabling illness. Meanwhile, healthy rational fear can be a catalyst, but it should never be a motivation. It's like running from a DOG. Once the dog is gone, people stop running. But if you LOVE running for the sake of running, you'll run when you don't even have to run; feel me?

Manifestos are awesome, so are playbooks. It's like free strategy. One of the BEST strategies actually, is to USE someones own strategy. You can see it through history, for example, how many people have been able to "control" Christians by using the Bible to manipulate them.

A huge issue I see in countermovements are: To beat a malicious strategist you have to be a benevolent strategist OR a supreme lover. The first takes two areas of superiority: goodness and tact. However, most really good people are uncomfortable being tactical. The very concept of tact in the world frightens some people so much. They've been taught and believe tact is evil unto itself. As for being a supreme lover, i my opinion that requires a deep relationship with God and the Self and knowing the difference, and fostering a relationship. The problem there is, many people don't believe in a God or they think they are God or God is in their head. That prevents them from being a supreme lover. Supreme lovers are people who just burst with so much love and good action that anything bad can't even compete. Still, many good people can't even put aside their own preconceptions of life and their sins to transform into such a force.