/SID/ SHILL IDENTIFICATION/TRUTH SUPPRESSION 101 GENERAL

Hello Sup Forums Im going to post some vital information about truth suppression and /shill/ tactics. Im hoping to get a sticky going so that we can all learn to avoid shills, as its becoming an bigger and bigger issue on chans. Some of this information can also be used for political discussion in real life, its very useful information to have.

Feel free to contribute.

Other urls found in this thread:

cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-cyber-effects.pdf
cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-online-deception.pdf
cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-disruption.pdf
cryptome.org/2014/01/gchq-squeaky-dolphin.pdf
svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/Board/oss/oss_sabotage.html
archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/!!9O2tecpDHQ6/
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/131038786/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Here is a quick run down on how to react when you encounter a shill. It also goes over some tactics that shills use. Knowing how to respond to a shill is very important.

For everyone in this thread, I suggest that you save these images and educate other people as required in regard to shilling, we'll be acting as a sort of anti-shill/truth suppression squad.

The people most vulnerable to these techniques are those who arent educated about this kind of thing, thats really have the battle.

...

>anyone who disagrees with me in any way is being paid to do so
Wrong.

Now much of what I have posted goes over the same stuff. However there are bits of information in all of this stuff that are useful, and unique to each picture.

I will be posting more shortly, I'd appreciate if anyone happens to read this stuff, to leave a bump.

This thread isn't just about shills, its about general truth suppression. Its the kind of tactics you will encounter when someone doesn't want you to know/talk about something.

Now it's unlikely you know this, but companies like, and indeed black rock itself have been selling services for this. They are renting artificial intelligence based on the Aladdin system that they use for financial purposes, its neural network which has been used for learning from financial systems to try and predict and respond to threats has a set of "brothers" which are used for social engineering purposes, and act as "online agents".

It's likely many people who read this thread don't know about this because they havent bothered to put the time in to research it, AND it's a bit of a secret, the only reason I know about this stuff is because I work in marketing, and these kinds of services are sought by marketing and PR firms for damage control, however the recent 2016 elections were a sort of proving ground for their use in politics, they saw widespread use as tools for truth suppression and as part of a grander scheme to change public opinion.

This was all done in conjunction with a fresh set of google and Social Media algorithms designed to suppress certain information.

25 February 2014. Related: GCHQ Full-Spectrum Cyber Effects:

cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-cyber-effects.pdf

24 February 2014. Related: GCHQ Online Deception:

cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-online-deception.pdf

GCHQ DISRUPTION Operational Playbook:

cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-disruption.pdf

29 January 2014. Related: GCHQ Squeaky Dolphin Psychological Operations:

cryptome.org/2014/01/gchq-squeaky-dolphin.pdf (18MB)

4 March 2012. Precursor to this sabotage, OSS Sabotage of Organizations:

svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/Board/oss/oss_sabotage.html
A list of resources.

1/?

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.

2/?

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.

3/?

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.

4/?

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.

5/?

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.'

6/?

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.

7/?

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.

Shills have been attacking my threads since right before the 6/3 Terror Attack(Pic Related):

Archives (You can see there tactics in action): archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/!!9O2tecpDHQ6/

1/?

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.

Hello Anon5. Thanks for the bump. Do you have any other examples you'd like to add?

I have had staunch resistance over the last 6 months in disseminating the information I have on shilling/truth suppression etc. and oddly to threads i've posted in about my work in marketing, and the experiences I've had with truth suppression, and general propaganda from marketing and PR agencies.

2/?

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.

3/?

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.

forgot to add a number to this one, it was meant to be 4/?

5/?

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.

bap

Thanks senpai. I've been trying to find some of this information again.

bump

Thanks for the bumps guys. I appreciate it. Its been annoying trying to get this rolling.

Ill be posting more information as I research, I will be reposting this several times a day for the foreseeable future. If you see these threads again a bump would be appreciated. Im hoping to get the mods to sticky it because its fairly important information for anyone engaged in dialogue of a controversial political nature.

noice

frank is a faggot

Have a bump.

An example of shill thread archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/131038786/

...

...

contribootin

...

First shill detected.

Countering shills is generally easy, because you have the truth on your side, and they don't. Also, the calibre of person who is likely to be chosen for a shilling job will generally be low. That means they can't so much more than spew rote talking points. It won't take long to expose this with counter arguments.

Shills hate being called what they are, so always call them out.

When you reply, remember that your goal is not to convince the shill (impossible), but rather to counter their arguments succinctly for the benefit of other readers. To that end, make sure you always bring the conversation back to your key points and agenda.

When replying, always try to comment about how ineffective and useless shilling is.

Pick out the parts of any shill reply that most addresses your argument and focus only on that while ignoring any atyempts to distract or raise strawmen. Then thank the shill for steering the topic into your desired direction.

Better yet, if ever a shill foolishly concedes a point, usually while trying to bring up a different one, in your reply you should focus only on his concession and make it seem like the shill is agreeing with everything you are saying.

Anything else you can do to make it seem like the shill is failing at their job, or worse being counter productive (i.e
helping your argument) is very demoralizing for the shill. These people are employees who are subject to internal reviews, and if they get the impression that they are not performing well, they will brcome anxious and demoralized.

The above tactics are also good to convince drive-by readers who just scan content without fully reading (most people) that the shill's side is losing.

Finally, you can always more directly attack the psyche of the shill by.making him feel bad about being immoral, or just being a mercenary with no honor, or better yet that they are aiding criminals. Follow this up by telling them what they're doing is illegal and could get them thrown in jail, but that if they were ever.to pull a Snowden on their employer they would be regarded as a hero. This will demoralize both the shill and their bosses, who will now have to worry about internal threats.

For shills who choose the tactic of trying to discredit a position by pretending to be an easily dismissed extreme/crazy charicature of the real thing, you should always remind them that although their tactic may be effective in the short term, in the long term all it does is open further the Overton window.

Making shills feel completely useless is easier than we think, and it's quite effective.

Bumparino