- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

Troll Tools
by Noven 05 Sep '16

05 Sep '16

1. COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum 2. Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation 3. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist 4. How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent) 5. Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression ______________________________________________________________________________________ COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum.. There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.' Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING' If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items. Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING' A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.' Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION' Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator. Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION' Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities. Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING' Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution. Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL' It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes. CONCLUSION Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation 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. 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 show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. 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' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact. 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. 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. 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. 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be 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. 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. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials 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. 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 - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) 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 then 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. 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, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. 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 lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue. 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. 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.' 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, it may be required that 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. 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. 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 and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. 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. 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. 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. 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 destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. 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. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist 1) Avoidance. 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) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose 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) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. 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) Teamwork. 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) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have 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) Artificial Emotions. 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 rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' 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, or simply give up. 7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency 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. 8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin. ______________________________________________________________________________________ How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent) 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. Cool 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. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party. 1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen. 2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit. 3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.") 4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike. 5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down. 6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not). 7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful. 8. Dismiss the charges as "old news." 9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets. 10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable. 11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak. 12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why? 13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions. 14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting. 15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source. 16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money. 17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

3 2

foundations for sanity
by Zenaan Harkness 05 Sep '16

05 Sep '16

(PS: Feel free to s/right/my_PC_term_of_choice/g ! Clarity good, whilst sidetracking to the point of burying the conversation is subversive to our collective and mutually beneficial intersts ! ) Perhaps this thread might be most useful for summarising/ sifting/ poignantizing the foundations we hold as important, and create separate threads laterwards to discuss any particular foundation, once we have at least a modicum of shared common agreement on the foundations. Here follows a first rough draft for: Foundations for Sanity - collective responsibility: We have a duty of care to one another and to nature, when doing anything in life, to take reasonable steps to avoid and to minimise the likelihood of harm to others and of harm to the environment. - individual responsibility We have a right to make all choices in respect of our own individual safety, health, reproduction and living / survival in general. Examples include the wearing of a bicycle helmet whilst cycling, wearing seat belts, rock climbing and skydiving, and eating takeaway food three times a day. - respect for the freedom, inherent dignity, rights and sovereignty of every human Although we may 'punish' or otherwise un-sanction our fellow society dwellers who enage in activities in ways which fail to demonstrate reasonable consideration for the safety of others, we shall limit our collective enforcement to not include activities which infringe no soul other than the individual soul himself. - the right for individuals to associate, or to not associate, with other individuals, at any and all levels (local, 'state', 'national') - the right to survive / live / thrive ("pursue happiness"), implying and including the following rights (add others as relevant of course): - the right to travel (work, find food, find a mate) (i.e. travel in ways commonly used to travel, e.g. drive a car) - the right to collect rainwater - the right to grow any plant, for any purpose which purpose does not endanger others nor infringe their individual sovereign rights - the right to keep and herd animals - the right to build dwellings and other buildings for our own chosen purposes - the right to think any thought (may become important in the near future) - the right to speak any words - the right to communicate on all political topics * The naming and writing in any foundation statement, and any particular right or foundation, shall not be taken to limit the expression, understanding nor intent of any other stated foundation. (And here we descend into the murky world of qualifications, slippery slopes and endless argument... I do not know how to avoid this part.)

2 3

Suggestion to list admins for warning/disclaimer on the web for new subscribers
by Georgi Guninski 05 Sep '16

05 Sep '16

The wikipedia page on cypherpunks have nothing to do with the current state of this list. History gets rewritten (from experience). I suggest after list discussion the list admins to put a warning on the list web page. Something along the lines of (clearly needs rewriting): ==== The list is not it used to be and has nothing to do with the wikipedia page. The list has spooks, paid trolls, other similar whores and possibly crackpots. Some of them post actively, others rarely. Their motivation might include: * social engineering * manipulating opinions * profiting from the past reputation of the term cypherpunk * killing the list "What You See is NOT What You Get" Use common sense when reading or posting to the list. ====

9 14

Re: individual responsibility - was Re: Nationalism vs Globalism
by Mark Steward 05 Sep '16

05 Sep '16

On 4 Sep 2016 01:53, "Mirimir" <mirimir(a)riseup.net> wrote: > > On 09/03/2016 05:25 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote: ... > > What kind of conversations are worthy of this list? > > Maybe this is just too obvious, but consider what "cypherpunk" means. > The term was coined in the "punk rock" era. So by analogy, cypherpunk is > about co-opting crypto against the system. So that's what this list is > for, I believe. It's not a list for social/political/economic theory or > the fucking US presidential race or sucking Putin's dick or whatever. > Also cyberpunk. Imagine a dystopic future of lonely, once angry, now tired individuals who lash out at any suggestion they are wrong. Back in the 90s they might have been nudged to tinker with crypto and empowering the world, but instead they spent their time seeing how many times they could fit "fuck" and "retard" into an email post. Mark

3 2

Nationalism vs Globalism
by Zenaan Harkness 05 Sep '16

05 Sep '16

The new dichotomy, Nationalism vs Globalism. This is how the current USA election debate is now framed it seems, see for example: Hillary’s ‘Racism’ Speech, And the Stunning Emergence of The New Left and Right "Old Lady Yells At Internet" "A titanic struggle between nationalism and globalism is playing out in the American elections" http://russia-insider.com/en/moment-reckoning-has-come-american-political-s… Left out of this debate of course are other genuine and alternative foundations such as a swing towards individual sovereignty and anarchism, which some name as direct democracy (perhaps a branch of the theory of anarchism/ anarchy/ political anarchy?). The powers that be of course are pushing very aggressively for globalism - their One World Order or New World Order, of course with America at the helm and dictating the terms. But individual sovereignty seems to strike fear into the hearts of oligarchs and global power brokers, since they still frame the debate as a black and white dichotomy between globalism and nationalism - this is their preferred dichotomy, attempting to ensure that individual sovereignty, politically empowering the individual, does not get a look in on this debate. We the disempowered, the non monied, will take nationalism over globalism, and "the elites" will take nationalism over individual sovereigntism. So except that the American voting machines are controlled by the existing powers that be in America and institute an entirely corrupt outcome, with "everything overall touch and go for the results, who can say?" and a "key swing state" "just nudges Hillary over the line" (ever seen this sort of corruption before?) - aka the usual corruption of American elections, there's a real chance for nationalism to prevail in the disgraced olde Ewe Ess of America. Unfortunately it seems the public consciousness is fully entrenched in dichotomies "gotta have a political party, and play the corrupt game, if we gonna get a different outcome". Can these disempowering and unnecessary or "false" dichotomies be busted or changed somehow in the public dialogue?

5 18

Re: Continual Violation of List Charter
by Mark Steward 05 Sep '16

05 Sep '16

On 4 Sep 2016 22:13, "juan" <juan.g71(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ... > > > "Form your own group, your own mailing list, with a catchy > > > name, something like "The Privacy Education Foundation," or > > > "The American Civil Liberties Union" (whoops, taken), or > > > "The Society for the Preservation of Cyberspatial Liberty." > > > " > > > "Evolution in action. The market in action. A better > > > approach than trying to get the name and the charter changed." > > > > A market in action... > > My point is that the CHARTER of the mailing list is supposed to > be LIBERTARIAN. > I don't think you have a clue what libertarian means. > > > I even found time to > > correct Tim May, who cried uncle sort of. ;-) I happened to have > > personal knowledge of that situation. > > > > I wasn't mature enough to philosophize much then. > > > And you think you are know? Do you know the etymology of the > word "philosophy", I suppose? > > Philo-sophy means love of knowdlege/wisdom. See, the requirement > for philosophy is not 'maturity'(whatever you mean by that). > The requirement for philosophy is the love of truth and > intellectual honesty. > I see you're authoritarian about language too. Philosophy's history, much like Scientology's, owes more to narcissism than etymology. Mark

3 2

Re: Open Public Notice re Tor Inc and Jacob Applebaum
by Ryan Carboni 04 Sep '16

04 Sep '16

The timeline of events will be fascinating to look as information drips out over time. In May, the Tor Project went from the FBI is harassing our developers, to Appelbaum is a rapist. Tor is showing it's age though, the 2013 botnet showed that Tor was less than optimal in it's design https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/9683 Of course making Tor more like nginx or Caddy would require a total rewrite, worker processes have the advantage of parallelization of crypto. One cannot expect their browser to be secure if it renders javascript, graphics, or media. QUIC uses the minimum of public headers and does not retransmit the same packet number, would allow for a packet switched design. Of course, the cheapest way to defeat Tor would be to DDOS it. How much would it cost to have several thousand of VPSes connect to each other over Tor and download /dev/zero/ to /dev/null/? Sometimes the best route is passivism.

1 0

Continual Violation of List Charter
by grarpamp 04 Sep '16

04 Sep '16

On Sat, Sep 3, 2016 at 4:38 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen(a)freedbms.net> wrote: > shit and get down to business on analysing political philosphies, to > find practical approaches for our modern societies full of schooled This list is *not* for that, and it's not a list to longtalk food recipes, or anything else either. Lack of moderation is not license for people to come here and setup their own offtopic shops, grossly, willfully and continually disrespecting what it says on the tin and the history of the list long before you [1], to the tune of many tens to hundreds of messages per month, especially without tying it into that. If you want to longtalk anything other than that to the point that the charter would need a whole new section just for you, GO FIND OR MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING LIST FOR THAT. [1] "The Cypherpunks mailing list is a mailing list for discussing cryptography and its effect on society." There are reasonable relateds within the realm of "cypherpunk" to include *its* computing, tools, privacy, surveillance, law, news, literature / art / society, hacking / making, organizations and projects, politics, tech, science, solutions, crime, etc, etc. The occaisional short lived foray under self regulation and restraint into untied topics of possible interest to readerbase might be considered ok, however NOT to the extent that it's been abused ongoing. If you're wondering why the "thousands" of people on the list aren't "analysing political philosophies" with you, it's because YOU'RE FUCKING OFFTOPIC, THEY DON'T WANT TO, and they've BLOCKED YOUR ASS. But for new people hoping to find a real or even passable cypherpunk list, and before even joining and blocking you, but just looking over archives, your noise, and the angry abusive trolls, kills it for them. Have some respect for that. The lot of you. Or get off here.

13 32

The NSA’s stash of digital holes is a threat to everyone online
by Cecilia Tanaka 04 Sep '16

04 Sep '16

The NSA’s stash of digital holes is a threat to everyone online. < https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/04/nsa-stash-digital-hol… > -- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

2 2

[WAR] US Peace Council returns from Syria, a country fighting “invasion by the most powerful country in the world”
by Zenaan Harkness 04 Sep '16

04 Sep '16

** Must see video: US Peace Council returns from Syria, a country fighting “invasion by the most powerful country in the world” (http://theduran.com/must-see-video-us-peace-council-returns-syria-county-fi…) ------------------------------------------------------------ must-see-video-us-peace-council The campaign to confuse the American people has been intense, but one thing is sure, Syria is fighting an invasion, not a civil war. The post Must see video: US Peace Council returns from Syria, a country fighting “invasion by the most powerful country in the world” (http://theduran.com/must-see-video-us-peace-council-returns-syria-county-fi…) appeared first on The Duran (http://theduran.com) .

1 0