[Debate] FW: The gentleperson's guide to forum spies

Sun Jul 15 17:10:24 BST 2012

Yoshie's problem with almost everyone on the Left apart from those who
agree with Yoshie, strengthens my feeling that we should surpass the
concept of a Left that includes both of these mutually-castigating parties
with a concept of global social emancipation. This would enable us to
debate, discuss and (preferably) dialogue about a not-yet constructed
concept and force. And Yoshie could tell us about the utopia - beyond
capital, state, racism, imperialism, patriarchy etc - to which her theory,
ideology, strategy is directed.

Pw

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi <
critical.montages at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd rather see a good divorce happen: the Left would be better off if
> anti-anti-imperialists turned leftwing keyboard warriors like Pham
> Binh & Co. just went ahead and followed in the footsteps of Fred
> Halliday, Norman Geras, Christopher Hitchens, etc.  That would be a
> win-win divorce.  Those of us who think that NATO doesn't bring
> freedom or democracy and that veterans of the Afghan jihad and the
> like don't make good democratic revolutionaries don't have to
> constantly fight with those who do; and those who think that
> anti-imperialism is generally bad (except when a proposed war looks to
> be expensive) can get to make much more money than they are earning
> now by making the same argument but to the right audience.
>
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:27 AM, David Everatt <David at everatt.co.za>
> wrote:
> > Sound more like ground-rules for a good marriage....
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 14 Jul 2012, at 4:24 PM, "Mandi Smallhorne" <mandiwrite at icon.co.za>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > This comes from a website I have no info about, and seems to be intended
> as
> > advice for those facing attack from something more serious than trolls,
> but
> > I found some of these ‘methods of spreading disinformation’ amusingly on
> > point! See nos 4-9 and 13, 17 and 19, for example. Ways of discussing
> best
> > avoided….
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> > database 7297 (20120713) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> > database 7298 (20120714) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
> >
> > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> > database 7298 (20120714) __________
> >
> > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
> >
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Debate-list mailing list
> > Debate-list at fahamu.org
> > http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Debate-list mailing list
> > Debate-list at fahamu.org
> > http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Yoshie Furuhashi
> <http://mrzine.org/>
> _______________________________________________
> Debate-list mailing list
> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>

-- 
*1.* Contribute to Journal Special on 'New Worker
Movements<http://www.interfacejournal.net/2011/06/call-for-papers-volume-4-issue-2-for-the-global-emancipation-of-labour-new-movements-and-struggles-around-work-workers-and-precarity/>
'!
*2. Blog:* http://www.unionbook.org/profile/peterwaterman
*3. EBook 2011, 'Under, Against, Beyond - Essays 1980s-
   1990s* s <http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/>
http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/under-against-beyond/
*4.* WorkingPaper *2012*: 'Emancipatory Labour
Studies'<http://www.iisg.nl/publications/respap49.pdf>
:
*5.* Draft EBook 2012: 'Recovering Internationalism - Essays 2000-10'
(draft):
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82125289/ReCovIntComp-A-2
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/82129474/ReCovtIntComp-B-2
*6. *Essay 2012: 'The 2nd Coming of the World Federation of Trade
Unions': <http://www.unionbook.org/profiles/blogs/peter-waterman-the-second-coming-of-the-wftu-updated>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120715/48b99fe9/attachment-0001.htm 